University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Public Access Theses and Dissertations from the
College of Education and Human Sciences
Education and Human Sciences, College of (CEHS)
Winter 12-10-2014
DRINKING IN CONTEXT: THE INFLUENCE
OF PEER PRESSURE ON DRINKING
AMONG CHINESE COLLEGE STUDENTS
Lanyan Ding
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss
Part of the Educational Psychology Commons
Ding, Lanyan, "DRINKING IN CONTEXT: THE INFLUENCE OF PEER PRESSURE ON DRINKING AMONG CHINESE
COLLEGE STUDENTS" (2014). Public Access Theses and Dissertations from the College of Education and Human Sciences. Paper 224.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/224
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Education and Human Sciences, College of (CEHS) at DigitalCommons@University of
Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Access Theses and Dissertations from the College of Education and Human Sciences by
an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
DRINKING IN CONTEXT: THE INFLUENCE OF PEER PRESSURE ON
DRINKING AMONG CHINESE COLLEGE STUDENTS
by
Lanyan Ding
A THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of
The Graduate College at University of Nebraska
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Master of Arts
Major: Educational Psychology
Under the Supervision of Professor Ian M. Newman and Erick S. Buhs
Lincoln, Nebraska
December 2014
DRINKING IN CONTEXT: THE INFLUENCE OF PEER PRESSURE ON
DRINKING AMONG CHINESE COLLEGE STUDENTS
Lanyan Ding. M.A.
University of Nebraska, 2014
Advisor: Ian M. Newman, Eric S. Buhs
The present study uses a cross-sectional method of subgrouping and examines the
influence of peer pressure on college students’ alcohol use in China. A total of 951
undergraduate students (freshman, sophomore, and junior) from a university in central
China volunteered to fill out questionnaires in convenient classrooms. The extent of
perceived peer pressure and corresponding drinking behavior were examined separately
in subpopulations categorized by gender and peer groups (History major and Physical
Education major). The mediational role of alcohol self-regulation self-efficacy on
pressure- drinking association was also examined.
Results have indicated gender differences and subgroup differences (HIST and
PE) for perceived peer pressure. Pressure was significantly related to alcohol drinking
frequency for both peer groups. Results from a path model indicated that perception of
peer pressure was negatively correlated with alcohol self-regulation self-efficacy. Less
alcohol drinking frequency was predicted by higher level of self-regulation self-efficacy.
The results suggest that educational strategies could be developed to teach students social
skills to resist pressure from peers.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Over the past two years of my life in the graduate school, I have received support
and encouragement from a great number of individuals. My foremost and deepest
appreciation goes to my advisor, Professor Dr. Ian Newman, who has been a mentor,
colleague, and friend. His persuasive attitude, patience, and kindness have imparted a
spirit of adventure in regard to my research and scholarship. Without his guidance and
constant support, this overall rewarding journey would not have been possible.
I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Duane Shell for his
invaluable ideas for the project. Experiences I have gained attending seminars and
discussions with him have served a source of motivation in completing this project. In
addition, I am very grateful to Dr. Eric Buhs for all his help on this project. His
suggestions, comments, and statistical expertise were indispensible components of my
success in the project and graduate life.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my uncle-in-law, Professor
Enlin Dong for providing connections to ensure the success of my data collection. Thanks
to Shuangshuang Cai for all her help in the data collection process. I also want to thank
Michelle and Niran for their help in editing this thesis.
Finally, my special appreciation to my husband, Liangwen Pi, for his support,
encouragement and unwavering love, which were undeniably the bedrock upon which my
past and present years of live have been built. I look forward to pursuing our dreams
together both as a couple and best friends. I thank my parents and in-laws for being
supportive of me in pursuing my dream of higher education.
ii
TABLE OF CONTEXTS
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
Alcohol Consumption in Western College Life .............................................................. 1
Alcohol Use among Chinese College Students ............................................................... 2
Social Functions of Drinking among Chinese College Students .................................... 4
Perceived Peer Pressure in College Contexts.................................................................. 5
Alcohol Self-regulation Self-efficacy ............................................................................. 6
Purpose Statement............................................................................................................... 7
Research Objectives ............................................................................................................ 7
Chapter 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................... 9
Definition of Peer Pressure ............................................................................................. 9
Measuring Peer Pressure ............................................................................................... 12
The Influence of Peer Pressure on College Drinking.................................................... 17
Overt drinking offers ................................................................................................. 17
Drinking modeling ..................................................................................................... 19
Drinking norms .......................................................................................................... 21
The Influence of Self-efficacy on College Drinking..................................................... 25
Peer pressure and Self-efficacy ..................................................................................... 25
Theoretical Model ............................................................................................................. 29
Chapter 3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 30
Subjects ......................................................................................................................... 30
Procedure....................................................................................................................... 30
Measures (see Appendix B and C) ................................................................................ 31
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 33
Chapter 4 Results .............................................................................................................. 34
iii
Demographics of the sample ......................................................................................... 35
Drinking Behavior ......................................................................................................... 36
Peers’ Alcohol Consumption ........................................................................................ 42
Perceived Peer Pressure ................................................................................................ 43
Self-regulation Self-efficacy ......................................................................................... 50
Major, Peer Pressure, Self-efficacy, and Drinking Frequency...................................... 52
Chapter 5 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 56
Peer Influence on College Drinking .............................................................................. 56
The Protective Factor of Self-efficacy .......................................................................... 57
Group Difference .......................................................................................................... 59
Gender Difference ......................................................................................................... 60
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 61
References ......................................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX A. Institutional Review Board Approval ..................................................... 77
APPENDIX B. English Version Questionnaire ................................................................ 79
APPENDIX C. Chinese Version Questionnaire ............................................................... 86
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Instrument for Peer Pressure ............................................................................... 14
Table 2 Demographics of the Sample .............................................................................. 35
Table 3 Drinking Status in History Major ....................................................................... 37
Table 4 Drinking Status in PE major ............................................................................... 38
Table 5 Drinking Status by Gender ................................................................................. 39
Table 6 Drinking Status by Major ................................................................................... 40
Table 7 Drinking Status by Grade ................................................................................... 41
Table 8 Drinking Patterns and Peer’s Alcohol Use ......................................................... 42
Table 9 EFA for Peer Pressure Scale from the First Split Sample .................................. 44
Table 10 CFA for Peer Pressure Scale from the Second Split Sample ............................ 45
Table 11 Goodness-of-Fit Indicators of Models for Peer Pressure.................................. 46
Table 12 Unstandardized and Standardized Loadings by CFA for Peer Pressure ........... 47
Table 13 Comparing Peer Pressure by Drinking, Major, Gender, and Grade ................. 49
Table 14 CFA for Chinese Alcohol Self-regulation Self-efficacy................................... 51
Table 15 Means and Standard Deviations for Each Variable .......................................... 53
Table 16 Path Model for Relationship among Major, Peer Pressure, Self-efficacy, and
Drinking ............................................................................................................................ 54
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Alcohol Consumption in Western College Life
Excessive drinking and its related health and social effects in collegiate settings
has long been a concern in the United States and other western countries (e.g., Borsari &
Carey, 2001; Gilles, Turk, & Fresco, 2006; Neighbors, Larimer, Geisner, & Knee, 2004).
Compared to non college youth, college students consume more alcohol per drinking
occasion (Slutske, 2005) and are more often involved in binge drinking (Wechsler, Lee,
Kuo, & Lee, 2000).
Following abuse and dependence are cognitive impairments (Koelega, 1995;
Peterson, Rothfleisch, Zelazo, & Pihl, 1990) which may increase the risk of impaired
academic performance, including lower Grade Point Averages (GPA) (e.g., Kremer &
Levy, 2008) , missing classes (e.g., Werner, Walker, & Greene, 1996), and poor
performance in assignments and exams (e.g., Leichliter, Meilman, Presley, & Cashin,
1998). In addition, alcohol misuse has consistently been related to other risk behaviors,
such as smoking (Wechsler et al., 2000; Wechsler, 1994), risky sexual behavior (Cooper,
2002), sexual assault (Abbey, 2002), suicide attempts (Leichliter et al., 1998), physical
injury (Wechsler & Isaac, 1992; Wechsler et al., 2000; Wechsler, 1994), drug use
(O’Malley & Johnston, 2002), drunk driving (e.g. Shults et al., 2001) and antisocial
behaviors (Borsari & Carey, 2001).
Given the rate of excessive drinking among college students and the consequent
risky behaviors, college students have been identified as a high-risk population for
2
alcohol abuse (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002, The National
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 2012).
Alcohol Use among Chinese College Students
Alcohol use in China, according to written records and archeological evidences,
began approximately 7,000 years ago (Li, 1993). In the long history of Chinese alcohol
use it is evident that alcohol has played a significant role in cooking, medicine, arts,
rituals, ceremonial occasions, and sacrifice to ancestors and gods. Drinking at moderate
level is not regarded as an awful behavior in Chinese culture, but rather it is encouraged
as a medium to show respect and to facilitate interpersonal communication (Lu, Engs, &
Hanson, 1997). However, there appears to be an increase in alcohol consumption and
problems associated due to the rapid economic development and westernization in China
(Cochrane, Chen, Conigrave, & Hao, 2003). Alcohol use has increased almost 10-fold
from the 1960s to the 1990s (Hao, Derson, Shuiyuan, Lingjiang, & Yalin, 1999). In 2009,
beer sale in China was estimated to account for 22% of the global production , which
makes China the largest beer producer in the world at present (Alcohol in Moderation,
2008). According to the report published by World Health Organization (WHO) in 2014,
annual alcohol consumption per capita in China increased to 6.7 liters of pure alcohol in
2010 from 5.8 liters of pure alcohol in 2005. More important,17.3% of drinkers were
reported to had engaged in the heavy episodic drinking in the past month, whereas 22.2%
of deaths resulting from road traffic accidents involved the use of alcohol according to
the same report by WHO.
3
The drinking patterns of Chinese university students have been reported in
previous studies. Abdullah and Fielding (2002) in a study of 1197 Hong Kong
undergraduates reported 61% to be drinkers. Griffiths and her colleagues (2006) also in
Hong Kong reported 62% of 2,968 undergraduates reported ever drinking alcohol and 7%
reported binge drinking.
Similar studies have been performed in the mainland China. Rate of alcohol use
among university students in central China has been found similar to rate mentioned
above for Hongkong (Newman et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2013), higher rates in southern
China (Lu et al., 1997; Ma & Fan, 2000) and the northeastern China has the highest rate
of consuming alcohol（Han, 1994; Leng, 2009; Newman et al., 2011). Moreover, heavy
drinking behaviors and consequent problems have been reported by students in Physical
Educational disciplines (Dong et al., 2006; Tu, 2007), and students with western culturalorientation (Tang et al., 2013) and vocational college students (Zhang-yuan, Ping, Liangliang, & Xian-hong, 2012).
Similar drinking patterns have been found among Chinese university students
studying outside of China. In Singapore, Isralowitz and Hong (1988) found that 72% of
males and 52% of females consumed alcohol. Similar proportions were reported among
Chinese graduate students in the U.S.A. (Pai, 1991). Compared to noncollege students
Chinese college students males in the U.S.A. were more likely to be involved in heavy
drinking (Chi, Kitano, & Lubben, 1988).
In the light of studies suggesting the increase use of alcohol and potential risks
among Chinese students, it is critical for policy makers to examine the alcohol use and
4
drinking behaviors to develop educational programs and policies in order to reduce risky
effect of drinking behaviors among students. The foremost necessity is to understand the
drinking patterns in the university context, followed by the identification of social factors
affecting drinking behaviors among Chinese college students.
Social Functions of Drinking among Chinese College Students
Alcohol drinking among college student usually occurs on social occasions (Knee
& Neighbors, 2002). Traditional Chinese culture and philosophy encourage moderate
drinking to show hospitality and strengthen relationships (Hao, Chen, & Su, 2005). In
China, alcohol toasting plays a major role in facilitating relationships. Toasting to seniors
and supervisors is a way to demonstrate respect. Accepting toasts from others is a basic
politeness, whereas refusing others’ toasts is regarded as arrogant and an embarrassment
to those making the toast.
This situation is also true among Chinese college students, who are learning social
customs to obtain acceptance and approval from peers. Evidence suggested that most
students started drinking with friends in college (Leng, 2009). The major reasons for
drinking were socializing, making friends, and acting “cool” (e.g., Wang, Wang, Zhou,
& Liu, 2002; Wu et al., 2009). Festivals, birthday parties and repaying good deeds were
major occasions for drinking among Chinese college students (Zhang & Liu, 2008).
These studies suggested peer interaction as a major reason for drinking among college
students, rather than self-enjoyment and relieving depression. Hence, the social
influences play a critical role in alcohol drinking among Chinese college students.
5
Peer influences might be especially robust among Chinese college students
because they spend most of their time with classmates in studying, living, and
entertainment. They have a fairly stable group of classmates during the course of their
undergraduate studies. In addition to the gregarious living environment, social values in
China emphasize the collectivistic culture and place the group needs over the wishes of
each individual.
Perceived Peer Pressure in College Contexts
Perceived peer pressure has been identified as a significant factor in youth
development, and impacts college students’ attitudes and drinking behaviors (e.g., Burk,
Vorst, Kerr, & Stattin, 2011; Kremer & Levy, 2008). On the one hand, college students,
after they leave their homes, spend less time at home, and break away from their parents’
immediate control. Without parents’ supervision, they are more likely to engage in
alcohol drinking. On the other hand, these college students might look for other
relationships like peers to meet some of their other needs they think cannot be fulfilled by
parents. Hence, peers replace parent’s influence and peers’ role is increased during
college life as developing a peer network and group formation becomes a primary task
for college students. This is more significant for freshmen, who undergo a shift from
parental attachment to peer dependence (Newman & Newman, 1976; Wall, Power, &
Arbona, 1993). As a matter of fact, socialization becomes an efficient approach for
college students to associate themselves with peers and win the peer acceptance from a
peer group.
6
Alcohol Self-regulation Self-efficacy
Compared to traditional behaviorists who have stressed external stimuli, Bandura
proposed understanding behavioral change from a social cognitive perspective (Bandura
& Cervone, 1986; Britton & Tesser, 1991). Although learning and actions are influenced
by positive or negative reinforcements, human behaviors are also affected by our
cognitive or mental representations of the environment (Glanz, Rimer, & Lewis, 2008).
Intrinsic reinforcements, such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of pleasure also change
learning behaviors (Bandura, 1977). By rejecting the behaviorists’ indifference to selfawareness, Bandura (1977) introduced the concept of self-efficacy, which emphasized the
role of self-referent beliefs (Pajares, 2003). Self-efficacy refers to individual’s confidence
in their abilities to succeed in a particular task in a particular context (Bandura &
Cervone, 1986). Self-efficacy is particularly important in managing social pressures to
drink alcohol against one’s will (DiClemente, Carbonari, Montgomery, & Hughes, 1994).
With respect to alcohol consumption, the alcohol self-regulation self-efficacy in
this study refers to people’s confidence of their own capabilities to drink responsibly
(Annis, 1982) or to resist social pressure to drinking in a given situation (DiClemente et
al., 1994; Shell, Newman, & Fang, 2010) . Studies have consistently shown that selfefficacy is associated with alcohol use in clinical samples (Webb & Baer, 1995), in
western populations (Ellickson & Hays, 1991), and Chinese populations (Shell et al.,
2010). Those with higher self-regulation self-efficacy were less susceptible to
7
interpersonal power, and thus were more able to manage external pressures from others
when alcohol intake was against their will.
In summary, peer pressure may significantly impact group members’ beliefs and
values, leading to differences in drinking behavior. This project explores peer pressure in
a Chinese college students populations potentially adding to our understanding of the
phenomenon in a nonwestern population.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to examine whether or not peer pressure is linked to
alcohol consumption among Chinese college students, and how peer pressure influences
college students’ cognitive process and corresponding drinking behaviors.
Research Objectives
The present study aims to assess effects of peer pressure on personal alcohol use
in a Chinese university context. In particular, there are two overall objectives for this
study: 1) to examine whether peer pressure predicts drinking, and 2) to investigate how
peer pressure influences drinking via cognitive processes on personal alcohol use. Several
hypotheses were proposed, as follows:
1) Higher peer pressure will be associated with higher drinking frequency.
2) Greater peer pressure will be associated with lower alcohol self-regulation selfefficacy.
3) Lower alcohol self-regulation self-efficacy will predict higher drinking frequency.
8
4) There will be a difference in the level of reported peer pressure on drinking
beliefs and drinking frequency between two sets of peer groups (HIST vs. PE,
Female vs. Male) in drinking frequency.
9
Chapter 2 Literature Review
In collegiate contexts, considerable research indicated the peer influence on
personal alcohol use. The initial alcohol use was mainly predicted by peers’ drinking (Lo
& Globetti, 1993; Reifman & Watson, 2003). The increase of personal drinking was
significantly associated with the alcohol use among college peers (Baer, Kivlahan, &
Marlatt, 1995; Wood, Read, Palfai, & Stevenson, 2001). This chapter reviews previous
studies about peer pressure in college drinking field, and is divided into four parts: 1) a
review of definitions of peer pressure, and 2) peer pressure measurements, and 3) the
influence of peer pressure on college drinking, and 4) the influence of self-efficacy on
college drinking, and 5) peer pressure and self-efficacy.
Definition of Peer Pressure
For decades, researchers have tried to understand what risk factors contributed to
alcohol use in college life. The influence from peers has been shown as one significant
predictor in the initiation or maintenance of drinking behavior on university campus since
1950s (e.g., Gusfield, 1961; Maddox, 1970; Straus & Bacon, 1953). Research has
consistently demonstrated the link between peer drinking and personal alcohol use among
college students (e.g., Martin & Hoffman, 1993; Mooney & Corcoran, 1991; Orford,
Krishnan, Balaam, Everitt, & Van der Graaf, 2004; Parfrey, 1974; Sherry & Stolberg,
1987; Shore, Rivers, & Berman, 1983; Shore & Rivers, 1985; Tryon, 1992; Werner,
Walker, & Greene, 1996). Therefore, understanding peer pressure is basic to understand
alcohol use and its related problems.
10
Newman and Newman (1976) were among the first to introduce the notion of
peer pressure and posited that pressures from peers were the major contributor that
affected young people’s social interaction. They postulated that in order to form a sense
of solidarity with peers and avoid alienation, young people were more likely to adopt
behaviors that were consistent with group norms. Conformity to the reference behaviors
formed a kind of pressure for group members. This pressure is especially potent when
youth attach a high value to affiliation with specific groups.
Following this conclusion, Brown and colleagues developed and validated a
measurement for assessing peer pressure - the Peer Pressure Inventory (PPI) (Brown,
Clasen, & Eicher, 1986; Clasen & Brown, 1985). The PPI examined peer pressure in five
contexts, including peer social activities, misconduct, conformity to peer norms,
involvement in school, and involvement with family. Among these five contexts, peer
pressure was distinguished with peer norms and thus, was defined explicitly as “when
people your own age encourage you to do something or to keep from doing something
else, no matter if you personally want to or not” (Brown, Clasen, et al., 1986).
Consistent with Brown et al. (1986), Santor, Messervey and Kusumakar (2000)
defined peer pressure as a subjective feeling of being pushed, urged, or dared by others to
do something only because of expectations from others. The key point of these two
definitions is that people do things because they have detected the overt pressure from
others. These two scholars focused on the explicit aspect of peer pressure and perpetuated
the perception of peer pressure as a one-dimensional influence (Borsari & Carey, 2001).
11
Others scholars have conceptualized peer pressure as a multidimensional
construct. The scope of pressures that individuals experience is beyond the explicit aspect
and extends into the implicit aspect. For example, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) defined
peer pressure as being “heavily influenced by the wishes and expectations of their
friends”. Most of times, these pressures were against subjects’ own inclinations or
parents’ discipline and directed toward delinquency or even criminal behaviors (p.158).
There are two dimensions in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s definition: in the explicit
dimension, individuals are undergoing overt pressures from peers to do something; in the
implicit dimension, engaging in misconduct such as drinking and challenging authority is
regarded as a group norm (Reed & Rountree, 1997). Conformity to this group norm,
which tends to be unconventional, is accounted as the implicit dimension of peer
pressure.
Borsari and colleagues (2001) defined peer pressure in a more comprehensive
way, which includes three dimensions in college drinking context: direct pressures (active
offers to alcohol drink), modeling (temporary and concurrent imitation of peer drinking),
and perceived norms including injunctive norms (the behaviors assumed to take place in
drinking) and descriptive norms (observed typical drinking behaviors).
In addition, other terms are often used interchangeably describing college
drinking. For instance, “conformity pressures” (Ross, Bierbrauer, & Hoffman, 1976) are
defined as perceived pressures from group members to conform to group behavior
standard. It includes both direct (peer coercion) and indirect pressures (peer norm) from
group members’ judgments and behaviors.
12
Other interchangeable terms have been used in studying university students’
drinking: social norms (Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986; Perkins, Meilman, Leichliter, Cashin,
& Presley, 1997; Prentice, Miller, Perkins, & Deborah, 1993), peer norms (Lo, 1995;
Perkins, 1985), group pressure (Asch, 1956), group norms (Newman & Newman, 1976;
Reed & Rountree, 1997), and normative influences (Knee & Neighbors, 2002; Perkins,
2002a). In general, they all define peer pressure as one’s perception of others’
expectations to comply with a norm. According to these definitions, peer pressure is
distinguished from coercive pressure, which involves threats or sanctions (Keefe, 1994).
In sum, there is a general agreement about the importance of peer pressure.
However, little consensus has been achieved about the conceptualization of peer pressure,
and how many dimensions should be examined for perceptions of peer pressure, and how
it works still need to be further discussed.
Measuring Peer Pressure
Table 1 summarizes measurements used for assessing peer pressure in previous
studies. Scales including less than three items were excluded from this review. The Peer
Pressure Inventory (PPI) (Clasen & Brown, 1985) is the most widely used peer pressure
scale. However, the PPI was not specially developed for assessing peer pressure in
alcohol consumption. Only three out of 53 items in the original PPI (Clasen & Brown,
1985) and one out of 12 items in the short version of PPI (Brown, Lohr, & McClenahan,
1986) are related to alcohol use. The similar issue exists for most of peer pressure
instruments. The majority of measurements were designed for broad umbrella notions
such as delinquency (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1987), antisocial behaviors
13
(Bámaca & Umaña-Taylor, 2006), and substance use (Dielman, Campanelli, Shope, &
Butchart, 1987; Simons-Morton, Haynie, Crump, Eitel, & Saylor, 2001). A limited
number of measurements have been developed to assess peer pressure in alcohol area, but
mainly focus on normative drinking pressures (Keefe, 1994; Knee & Neighbors, 2002).
We could not identify any ready-made measurements to estimate peer pressure among
Chinese college students.
Table 1
Instrument for Peer Pressure
Authors
Sample
Study Scale Content
Design
Limitations
Clasen &
Brown
(1985)
7-12th graders
(N=689) in the
U.S.A.
CS
53 items on a 7-point scale;
5 areas of behaviors: peer social activities, misconduct,
conformity to peer norms, involvement in school, and
involvement with family.
Brown et
al. (1986)
7-12th graders
(N=373) in the
U.S.A.
3rd, 6th, 9th, 11th,
and 12th graders
(N=1,251) in the
U.S.A.
9-12th graders with
Mexican-origin (N =
1,062) in the U.S.A.
CS
Adapted from PPI (Clasen & Brown, 1985);
12 items.
Only 3 items relate to
alcohol use;
Unsuitable for
screening large numbers
of youth.
Only 1 item relates to
alcohol use
CS
30 items;
3 types of behaviors: prosocial, antisocial, and neutral
behaviors.
Focus on resistance
ability.
CS
Focus on resistance
ability.
9-12th graders with
Mexican-origin (N=
564) in the U.S.A.
CS
Mid-adolescence
(N=5,518) in the
LO
Adapted from Berndt (1979);
20 items;
Assess resistance to peer pressure (RPP);
Includes antisocial and neutral behaviors.
Adapted from Berndt (1979);
10 items;
Includes antisocial behaviors (breaking rules, negative
actions toward others, and unplanned/unintentional moral
dilemmas).
5 items;
Dichotomous response;
Berndt
(1979)
UmañaTaylor &
Bámaca
(2003)
Bámaca &
UmañaTaylor
(2006)
Crockett,
et al.
No specific items relate
to alcohol use.
Vague items.
14
(2006)
Dielman
et al.
(1987)
U.S.A.
5th and 6th graders
(N=2,589) in the
U.S.A.
Farrell &
White,
(1998)
Johnston
et al.
(1987)
10th graders (N=630)
in the U.S.A.
LO
High school students
in the U.S.A.
LO
Keefe
(1994)
7th, 9th and 11th
graders (N=386) in
the U.S.A.
CS
Knee &
Neighbors
(2002)
Undergraduates
(N=74) and male
fraternity members
(N=53) in the U.S.A.
CS
Kiranesen
(2003)
Santor et
al. (2000)
8th graders (N=718)
in Turkey
CS
11th to 13rd graders
(N=148) in the
U.S.A.
CS
CS
Negative peer pressure.
7 items;
Consists alcohol, marijuana, and cigarettes.
4 items on a 6-point scale;
Items were imbedded in the measure of drug use
frequency.
7 items;
e.g. “How do you think your close friends feel if”
subjects engage in the following 7 delinquency areas
(marijuana, smoking, amphetamine).
7 items;
e.g. “My parents [My best friends] think that I should not
drink at all.”
“My parents [My best friends] think that it’s OK for me
to have one or two drinks every other week.”
Adapted from Keefe (1994);
10 items on a 7-point scale;
e.g. “My best friends think I should drink at a party.”
“My best friends think that I should never drink.”
“My best friends think that it’s OK for me to have five or
more drinks once or twice every weekend.”
34 items;
5-point Likert scale.
11 items;
Assessing risk behavior, including substance use, risktaking behavior, and delinquency, as well as dating
attitudes, sexual behavior, and school performance.
Only 3 items relate to
alcohol;
Focus on susceptibility
to peer pressure.
Not been specifically
designed for alcohol
use.
Only 3 items relate to
alcohol use.
Focus on normative
pressure.
Focus on normative
pressure.
Focus on smoking.
Only 2 items relate to
alcohol use.
15
Schlegel
et al,
(1977)
Catholic boy’s high
school (N=196) in
the U.S.A.
LO
SimonsMorton et
al. (2001)
6th to 8th graders
(N=4,263) in the
U.S.A.
CS
Sullivan,
(2006)
Youth (N=1,389) in
the U.S.A.
LO
Shore et
al. (1983)
9 alcohol situations, consisting 3 types of alcohol (beer,
liquor, wine) in 3 social settings;
e.g., “please answer these questions as you think you will
do or feel in the next month.”
Drinking and smoking;
Direct peer pressure: whether being encouraged by a
friend to smoke/drink;
Indirect peer influence: how many of the respondent’s
five closest friends smoke/drink.
5 items;
Dichotomous response;
e.g., “feel pressure from your friends to skip school.”
“Feel pressure from your friends to try marijuana or other
drugs.”
6 vignettes on a 7-point scale;
Including 6 situations: bar, party, date, large formal
party, dormitory or fraternity or sorority room, and car;
Male and female versions separately.
Focus on alcohol
intentions and
normative beliefs.
Only 2 items relate to
alcohol use.
For child population.
UNL undergraduates CS
Unsuitable for Chinese
(N=548) and NWV
collegiate context.
undergraduates
(N=140) in the
U.S.A.
Yunus et
Adolescents from
CS
15 items;
Focus on adaptive
al ( 2012) Gujrat city, Pakistan
3 subscales, including belongingness, influential learning behavior learning.
(N=120)
subscale, influential consequence.
Note. CS is cross-sectional study, LO is longitudinal study. UNL is University of Nebraska-Lincoln. NWV is Nebraska Wesleyan
University.
16
17
The Influence of Peer Pressure on College Drinking
Support and approval from peers benefit college students’ emotional and social
wellbeing. However, peers are likely to exert pressures that direct students toward
undesirable behaviors. For example, they are more likely to encourage alcohol use than
discourage it (Johnson, 1989). They are more comfortable with (Prentice et al., 1993) and
more approving of (Berkowitz & Perkins, 1986; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986) friends’
alcohol use than parents. The same trend happens to close friends when facing
individual’s excessive drinking (Alva, 1998; Baer, 1994; Prentice et al., 1993). Peer
influence is clearest in overt drinking offers, drinking modeling, and local drinking
norms. The next section summarized research findings concerning three forms in which
peer pressure affect alcohol drinking among college students (Borsari & Carey, 2001).
Overt drinking offers
Direct peer pressure refers to explicit offers to use alcohol (Wood, Read, Mitchell,
& Brand, 2004). Examples in this case include being offered a toast, having a drink
refilled without asking, being teased for abstinence, being urged on drinking rate, or by
buying rounds (Rosenbluth, Nathan, & Lawson, 1978). This situation is especially potent
in China, which views offering alcohol as a way of showing hospitality, whereas refusing
another’s toast is disrespectful. Even worse is accepting one person’s toast, but refusing
another’s on a banquet. In order to maintain peer acceptance and avoid inadequacy,
individuals tend to comply with others’ wishes of alcohol use.
Three qualitative studies have described the influence of overt peer pressures on
alcohol consumption among college students. Howard and his colleagues’ study (2007)
18
reported that males often encouraged each other to drink large quantities of alcohol to
show “liquid courage”. The desire to get positive evaluations from peers leads to conform
to friends’ expectations. Lashbrook (2000) has shown that students responded with
shame-related feelings, such as being afraid of being seen as inadequate, feeling isolated,
and ridiculed when facing coercion from peers. These negative emotions, according to
college students’ diaries, were shaped and reinforced by peers’ comments, teasing, and
attitudes. Refusal of offers was seen as resulting in peer isolation and exclusion from
social activities (Rabow & Duncan-Schill, 1995).
Quantitative data from Shore and her colleagues (1983) have shown that students
who got more drinking offers but had low resistance to offers were more likely to be
involved in excessive drinking. The effect of explicit drinking offers was less obvious on
junior undergraduate students and female drinkers (Klein, 1991). The influence of offered
drinks by peers was also significantly related to alcohol-related problems. Students who
received more offers to drink alcohol reported heavier drinking and suffered more from
alcohol-related problems (Wood et al., 2001). The reciprocal relationship between heavy
drinking and active pressures may intensify this effect. On the one hand, alcohol offers
lead to excessive drinking. On the other hand, heavy drinkers are more likely to attract
drinking encouragement and receive more offers than nondrinkers (Orford et al., 2004).
By contrast, other studies have suggested that peers rarely control each other’s
behavior by using explicit or coercive pressures (Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990).
Berndt, Miller, and Park (1989) reported that a majority of adolescents denied that their
friends had changed their attitudes or behaviors. Reed and Rountree (1997) reported that
19
overt peer pressure neither significantly influenced adolescent’s alcohol use, nor
mediated the effect of different peer group associations on personal alcohol use.
In sum, the majority of research concerning the influence of overt peer pressure on
personal alcohol use has focused on adolescent population, whereas attention to college
drinking has been limited. In the few studies on university student populations, findings
of the effects of explicit peer pressure are contradictory. The possible explanation is that
adolescents may regard drinking offers as a friendly gesture and are not willing to admit
the existence of peer pressure.
Drinking modeling
Modeling refers to observing another’s drinking behavior (Maisto, Carey, &
Bradizza, 1999). Social learning theory proposes the notion of vicarious learning and
suggests that people can imitate the behaviors surrounding them. Individuals may feel
tempted to imitate drinking merely by observing the outcomes of drinking by others
modeling the behavior, or they are inspired by the excited drinking atmosphere. That is,
exposure to social models who drink heavily increases the probability of drinking among
university students. Socialization, accordingly, creates an excellent context in which peer
modeling activates and contributes to peer similarity (Berndt, 1982, 1989). More
important, unlike overt peer pressure, which produces an increase in drinking
immediately, modeling could stimulate future drinking imitation even when the modeling
behavior is absent (Bandura & Cervone, 1986; Bandura, 1977). Peer modeling, according
to findings from both laboratory and social survey studies, can explain some of the
effects of peers on university students’ drinking.
20
A number of experimental studies have explored modeling drinking effects with
college student participants (see Borsari & Carey, 2001). Overall, results from those
experiments indicated that subjects exposed to heavy-drinking modeling were inclined to
drink more than subjects exposed to light-drinking modeling or abstinence modeling.
Performance modeling increased drinking in both heavy drinking subjects and light
drinking subjects.
Longitudinal data from Lau, Quadrel, and Hartman’s (1990) study indicated that of
various social influence processes, direct modeling of peer drinking contributed the
strongest impact on drinking attitudes and behaviors among college students over the first
three years of college. Similar correlations between best friends’ drinking pattern and
respondents’ drinking as well as alcohol-related problems in college students were
identified by Werner et al. (1996). Findings from Bartholow et al.’s (2003) 11-year
longitudinal study indicated the great contribution of modeling to peer similarity in
drinking behavior among college Greek members. Greater cumulative exposure to
fraternity or sorority social networks correlated with increased heavy drinking. Therefore,
drinking behaviors of immediate models served as a significant predictor for drinking in
college (Bartholow et al., 2003).
Results from Kremer and Levy’s (2008) cross-sectional study have shown a
positive correlation between roommate drinking ratings and subjects’ own drinkingrelated problem. Specifically, a male student with a drinking roommate is more likely to
be exposed to drinking, affecting students’ college grade point average.
21
Findings from studies of Chinese university students also indicated that subjects’
alcohol consumption was affected by drinking behaviors of those around them. For
example, Ma and Fan (2000) found that college students with drinking friends were more
likely to engage in alcohol drinking. Almost half of subjects (43.41%) initiated their
alcohol drinking due to persuasion from friends (Leng et al., 2009).
Drinking norms
In addition to behavioral modeling, student drinking is influenced by drinking
norms. Perceived norms (Wood et al., 2004) refer to beliefs about how much and how
often “typical” college students drink (Baer & Carney, 1993; Baer, Stacy, & Larimer,
1991; Perkins et al., 1997). Examples of drinking norms include attitudinal norms (shared
expectations in utilizing alcohol) and behaviors norms (the typical drinking behavior
within a group) (Perkins, 2002b). Those typical beliefs and actions serve as a powerful
reference and efficiently regulate behaviors of group members, which lead to a “selffulfilling prophecy” effect on the individual level (Merton, 1957) and a more
homogeneous situation on the group level (Cleveland & Wiebe, 2003). Behaving in
accordance with perceived social norms is a way to demonstrate an individual’s group
affiliation to others as well as themselves.
In a college context, as alcohol use becomes more common, students get
accustomed to the prevalence of excessive drinking. Some individuals will regard
drinking as an integral part of social life. The salience of drinking benefits will likely to
be overestimated, while side effects will be more downplayed within a peer group (Keefe,
1994). Thus, drinking will be regarded as a positive normative behavior for socializing,
22
rather than a negative one. These drinking norms and drinking values form a “subculture” (Brown, 1982) which approves or even praises alcohol use. Drinkers who get
positive reinforcements in their drinking culture tend to drink more. Other group
members, although against their will, are more likely to participate in drinking to obtain
group acceptance (Parish & Parish, 1991; Thombs, Beck, & Mahoney, 1993), facilitate
intimacy (Nezlek, Pilkington, & Bilbro, 1994) and enjoy socialization (Carey, 1993, 1995;
Teahan, 1987).
A large number of studies have found that in college life, drinking norms are
typically strong influences on personal behavior in alcohol consumption. For example,
Perkins’ (1985) study of a cross-section of undergraduates sample at a northeastern
college found that perceived group norms of drinking was a more influential contributor
to alcohol use than other background factors including religion, gender, and parental
opinions. Perkins and Wechsler (1996) based on a nationwide data indicated that, even
after controlling for the actual norm on subjects’ campus and their personal attitude,
differing personal perceptions of the local campus norms had a significant impact on
students’ own use and drinking problems. In contrast, Hanson (1977) reported drinking
norms has little impact on college student’s alcohol consumption.
Differences in perceived group norms exist across genders and groups. Lo’s (1995)
cross-sectional study of college students sample at a southern university found that peer
norms had a stronger correlation with males’ intoxication levels than the correlation with
females’ intoxication levels. Similar gender differences in perceived drinking norms have
been demonstrated in a nationwide college survey (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, &
23
Castillo, 1995). Differences in perceived drinking norms are reported among three
subgroups (fraternity group, sorority group, and non-Greek affiliations). In comparisons
with non-Greek affiliations, the binge drinking norms were more common for both
fraternities and sororities (Wechsler et al., 1995). Another nationwide study indicated that
athletes consumed alcohol more often and significantly larger amount than nonathletes
did (Leichliter et al., 1998).
The effect of group norm on college drinking is achieved through altering students’
attitude toward alcohol use. The perceived drinking norms are internalized as a cognition,
which in turn, changed drinking behavior in the future. Individuals’ cognition mediates
peer influence on college drinking (Oostveen, Knibbe, & De Vries, 1996). An
experimental study by Nye, Agostinelli, and Smith (1999) revealed how the information
for normative behavior altered university students’ judgment for heavy drinking and
consequences. Specifically, offering information about typical drinking behavior
significantly predicted changes in drinking evaluation and alcohol problem recognition.
Based on these findings, intervention programs have been developed to target drinking
norm education. Significant reductions in alcohol use have been achieved by changing
college drinking norms (Borsari & Carey, 2001).
Most scholars focused on one aspect of peer pressure, a few studies have
examined all three aspects and tried to identify the most robust factor that predicts
alcohol misuse. Wood and colleges (2001) recruited a college student sample with heavydrinking problems and evaluated both direct (drinking offers) and indirect (modeling and
descriptive norms) on peer influence. Results from structural equation modeling
24
demonstrated that modeling exerted the greatest impact on drinking and corresponding
consequences. Drinking offers were significantly associated with both alcohol use and
problems. Perceived drinking norms contributed to alcohol use, but not to related
problems. That is, drinking norms had relatively less influence than drinking offers and
modeling among college students. Similar results have been documented in Britt and
Campbell’s (1977) in a longitudinal study, which indicated that drinking norms from
peers imposed limited influence on alcohol use, while normative standards from parents
exerted greater influence on drinking in both high school and college life. Social norm
and normative beliefs toward drinking from peers were less likely to predict alcohol use
and related problems compared to other social factors including parental, religious, and
traditional influence (Kilty, 1978).
Based on previous findings, the present research focused on the first aspect-direct
peer pressure on drinking. Overt pressure is commonly referred as the key feature of peer
pressure construct (Santor et al., 2000) and has been shown to be more influential than
other two aspects (see Britt & Campbell, 1977; Kilty, 1978; Wood et al., 2001). Overt
immediate pressure to use alcohol is potent in socialization to get social approval, and to
avoid social discomfort and rejection so it is immediately potent (Johnson, Marcos, &
Bahr, 1987). Direct pressure is most easily detected and more likely to show in testing.
In sum, understanding peer pressure is important to understanding risky behaviors
and because there are cultural and social difference between western and Asian cultures.
It is meaningful to examine peer pressure in Chinese contexts.
25
The Influence of Self-efficacy on College Drinking
In addition to influence from peers, the individual’s personal attitudes may affect
alcohol drinking among college students. Self-efficacy for resisting pressures to drink is
important (e.g., Baldwin, Oei, & Young, 1993; Shell, 2010). Among college students,
lower levels of drink refusal self-efficacy are associated with higher levels of drinking
quantity (Hasking & Oei, 2002) and frequency (Baldwin et al., 1993) among light
drinkers and heavy drinkers (Gilles et al., 2006; Oei & Morawska, 2004; Ricciardelli,
Connor, Williams, & Young, 2001), lonely drinkers (Christiansen, Vik, & Jarchow,
2002), problem versus nonproblem drinkers (Oei, Fergusson, & Lee, 1998), regular
drinkers (Burke & Stephens, 1999; Reis & Riley, 2000; Young, Connor, Ricciardelli, &
Saunders, 2006), and Asian students (Oei & Jardim, 2007). Findings from interventions
have indicated that increases in self-efficacy to resisting pressure leads to less drinking
quantity (Schroeder & Prentice, 1998).
Similar evidences have been found in studies on Chinese adolescent population.
Results also indicated that low self-efficacy for resisting pressures to drink led to higher
drinking frequency in Mongolia (Shell, Newman, & Qu, 2009), Henan Province
(Newman, Shell, Qu, Xue, & Maas, 2006), Beijing (Shell et al., 2010), and higher
drinking quantity in Taiwan (Yeh & Chen, 2007) .
Peer pressure and Self-efficacy
Some studies have examined both self-efficacy and peer pressure on alcohol use
and related problems. For example, an Australian university study reported that both
drinking pressure and low self-efficacy in resisting alcohol use contributed significantly
26
to the alcohol use (Young, Oei, & Crook, 1991). Reis and Riley (2000) conducted a
cross-sectional study of college students and reported a general linear model indicating
that perceived gender-specific drinking norms contributed greater variance in students’
self-reported weekly alcohol consumption than did self-efficacy. Kinard and Webster
(2010) examined the simultaneous effects of advertising, parental and peer influence, and
self-efficacy on adolescent alcohol consumption and noted that peer and parental
influence were stronger predictors for alcohol consumption, while self-efficacy was a
weak predictor.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that effects of peer pressure on college
drinking might be achieved by influencing cognitive process on personal alcohol use
(Borsari & Carey, 2006). In other words, peer pressure and self-efficacy might interact to
affect alcohol use.
In college, obtaining peer acceptance and avoiding negative impressions is one of
the important motivations to join in drinking (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992).
Students who want to avoid negative evaluation from peers may match their behaviors
with perceived expectations from others (Schroeder & Prentice, 1998). Violating these
social values can make one appear aloof, which is especially undesirable in social
situations. Consistent coercion and teasing are likely to force adolescents to comply with
group norms, and thus decreasing adolescents’ confidence for resisting peer pressure. In
this case, adolescents’ self-regulation self-efficacy tends to become lower. Greater peer
pressure decreases individual’s capacity to say “no” to drinking offers.
27
For example, Schroeder and Prentice (1998) undertook an experimental study to
examine the influence of peer pressure on drinking. Results indicated that reducing
misperceptions of alcohol prevalence among peers reduced a fear of obtaining negative
peer evaluation, which in turn, led to observed reductions in alcohol drinking. Results
from a survey of 12 high schools in Taiwan indicated that adolescents reported the lowest
self-efficacy to resist drinking when facing socializing pressure (Yeh & Chen, 2007).
However, this interaction may vary in contexts. Group difference has been
revealed regarding peer pressure in drinking and self-efficacy to resisting drinking. Asian
students reported higher drinking refusal self-efficacy and lower drinking frequency than
Caucasian students did when facing drinking pressure in college social contexts
(Christiansen et al., 2002). Drinking level might be another factor in this interaction.
Findings from a heavy drinking sample on one university campus indicated that students
who drank heavily when alone reported less self-efficacy to reduce drinking than heavy
drinkers in socialization (Christiansen et al., 2002). Opposite results were found in
regular college drinkers (Schroeder & Prentice, 1998; Yeh & Chen, 2007).
In sum, findings have shown the impact of social pressure of peers and selfefficacy on alcohol consumption separately. However, the mechanism through which
those variables achieved in their outcomes remains to be examined. Based on previous
findings, it is reasonable to assume that some students may not feel capable of refusing
offers, especially in situations where toasting to guests and accepting a toast is regarded
as a gesture showing respect in China. In contrast, students with higher ability to refuse
28
an offered drink, albeit undergo peer pressure, would be more likely to refrain from
excessive drinking (Shore et al., 1983).
29
Theoretical Model
This cross-sectional study examines the association of peer pressure and drinking
frequency by exploring this relationship among undergraduate students in China.
Furthermore, this study explores the mediating effects of alcohol self-regulation selfefficacy, on the relationship between peer pressure and drinking frequency. Specifically,
this study examined how the self-efficacy for resisting peer pressure might vary as a
function of peer pressure received within a peer group, and how the self-regulation selfefficacy might influence drinking frequency.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model postulating that 1) the perception of peer
pressure will be a significant predictor of alcohol drinking frequency and, 2) the effects
of peer pressure on drinking frequency will be primarily mediated through alcohol selfregulation self-efficacy, and 3) majoring in a discipline will be a significant predictor of
peer pressure, self-efficacy, and drinking.
Selfefficacy
Major
Peer
pressure
Drinking
Frequency
Figure 1. Conceptual model guiding estimation of the influence of peer pressure
on college drinking in China.
30
Chapter 3 Methodology
Subjects
Provide a wide range of student drinking patterns, participants were recruited
from the major of Physical Education (PE) and History (HIST). According to literature
reviews (Dong et al., 2006; Tu, 2007), students in the major of Physical Education have a
high likelihood drinking, while those in History were assumed to have lower drinking
rate.
All participants were enrolled in a university in central China, Wuhan city. This
university has been selected because of its convenient accessibility and proximity to the
researchers. Since it is typical of above-average Chinese universities, the sample of
students was expected to present results similar to other similar universities. Specific
demographic characteristics for this sample are displayed in table 2, chapter 4.
Procedure
For each grade within the major of PE and HIST, a letter describing the study was
sent to the managers of all students enrolled. Managers and university employees were in
charge of group of students. Managers were told about the purpose of the research study
method. Classrooms were selected at random and all students invited to participate.
Approval was obtained by the Dean of each department. This research won approval by
the Institutional Review Board at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
The data collecting process was managed by two education professionals from
Nebraska Prevention Center for Alcohol and Drug Abuse (NPCADA).
31
Participation required 30 minutes for data collection. Data were collected via a
questionnaire. The questionnaire contained a few parts: part 1, a brief demographic
questionnaire, part 2 questions about drinking behavior, part 3, three scales measuring
peer pressure, alcohol outcome expectancies, and one for self-regulation self-efficacy.
After finishing the data collection, all of the completed questionnaires were
shipped to NPCADA and stored in a locked file. After coding and data entering, all
questionnaires were destroyed. No names or identifying information was collected. The
electronic data files are password-protected.
Measures (see Appendix B and C)
Drinking frequency. Drinking frequency measures were based on reported
frequency in the past year and the past month. Subjects were categorized as non-drinkers
(those who reported never drinking or not drinking within the past year), occasional
drinkers (those who drank in the last year but not in the last 30 days) and regular drinkers
(those who drank within the last 30 days) (Shell et al., 2009).
Perceived Peer Pressure. The perceptions of peer pressure among Chinese
university students were measured by an 8-item measurement adapted from a pre-existing
scale (Santor et al., 2000). The original measure for peer pressure consisted of 11 items
that assessed pressures toward doing risky behaviors in adolescents (breaking rules, doing
foolish things, drinking alcohol, having sex, and doing drugs). Two items that specifically
related to drinking pressure were adopted in the present study. Another three items that
assessed peer pressure toward drug use and breaking rules were adapted into peer
pressure toward to alcohol use. Since effects from general friends’ pressure and close
32
friends’ pressure might be different on personal alcohol use (Knee & Neighbors, 2002),
three items were designed to estimate pressures from general friends, while another three
items with similar content were develop to assess drinking pressures from close friends.
Participants were asked to respond to each statement on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from (1) strongly disagree, (2) mildly disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4)
mildly agree to (5) strongly agree. Scores of eight items were summed together to get a
final score as an indication of perceived pressures from peers toward alcohol use. The
higher the scores, the higher pressures subjects perceived from peer to involve in alcohol
use. Specific test results for scale reliability and validity were presented in table 12 to
table 15 in chapter 4.
Chinese Alcohol Self-regulation Self-efficacy (CASSE). Students’ self-efficacy for
resisting pressure from peers was measured using the CASSE. This instrument was
developed by Shell, Newman and Fang (2010). This instrument has been validated and
used to assess Chinese adolescents’ confidence of resisting peer pressure (Shell et al.,
2010). The CASSE contained 28 items scored on a 0–100 scale. A score of 100
represents full confident to resist the pressure to drink. A score of 0 represent that
subjects have no confidence at all to resist the pressure toward drinking alcohol. If
subjects’ confidence level locates between these two extremes, they write the number that
best reflects their feelings.
The CASSE includes four subscales: 8 items for situational social pressures (e.g.
resist pressure to drink on a date), 4 items for mood/affect (e.g. resist the urge to drink to
when felling joyful), 8 items for personal social pressures (e.g. resist the urge to drink to
33
impress your friends), and 8 items for excessive drinking (e.g. resist pressure to get drunk
at your own birthday party). The reliability in the original scale was 0.90 for situational
social pressures, 0.80 for mood/affect, 0.91 for personal social pressures, and 0.92 for
excessive drinking (Shell et al., 2010). After applied to the present sample, the alpha
reliability in original scale was 0.90 for situational social pressures, 0.81 for mood/affect,
0.90 for personal social pressures, and 0.88 for excessive drinking respectively in the
present dataset (see table 17).
Demographic characteristics. Participants were asked to complete a demographic
questionnaire including their gender, grade (junior/sophomore/senior), and how many of
respondents’ friends are from the same discipline (see table 2 in chapter 4).
Classmates’ drinking behavior. Two questions were used to measure classmates’
drinking behaviors. Participants read six options and chose the one that represented their
perceptions. For example, “How many of your female classmates drink alcohol in the
past 12 months?” “How many of your male classmates drink alcohol in the past 12
months?”
Data Analysis
To examine how perceived peer pressure is related to self-regulation self-efficacy
and drinking frequency, SPSS 22.0 and Mplus 7.0 were used. SPSS 22.0 was used to the
item analysis for peer pressure measurement. Mplus 7.0 was used for the factor analysis
for peer pressure measurement and alcohol self-regulation self-efficacy. The path model
was used to analyze the relationship between peer pressure, self-regulation self-efficacy,
and drinking frequency by Mplus 7.0.
34
Chapter 4 Results
A total of 951 college students from History major (HIST=432) and Physical
Educational major (PE=519) volunteered to participate in this survey. One student
dropped from this participation due to religious belief. Two questionnaires were deleted
due to missing values in the demographic part. Another 57 questionnaires were excluded
from the dataset because of their illogical responses. For example, four students reported
zero drinking frequency in the last year but nonzero drinking frequency during the
previous month. Several subjects consistently chose only one option while others
regularly answered the questionnaire with a ABABAB, AAABBB, or ABCABCABC
pattern. After dropping those invalid questionnaires, a total of 891 questionnaires (94%)
were used for the analysis.
In addition, 17 subjects of the remaining dataset misunderstood instructions.
Respondents were expected to mark a separate score for each item in the self-efficacy
measurement. However, they circled only a one score on the reference scale for the entire
self-efficacy measurement. Since their responses were complete for other parts of the
questionnaire except for the self-efficacy scale, these 17 observations were excluded only
for the analysis concerning self-efficacy. Therefore, the sample size used for the
descriptive part about demographics, drinking frequency, and peer pressure was 891
questionnaires (94%). The valid sample was 874 students (92%) for the advanced
analysis of the relationship among alcohol use, peer pressure, and self-efficacy.
35
Demographics of the sample
A total of 894 questionnaires (94%) were used for describing the demographic
characteristics of subjects.
Table 2
Demographics of the Sample
PE
N
Major
Gender
Grade
PE
%
N
Total
%
N
%
487
54.7
0
0
487
54.7
HIST
0
0
404
45.3
404
45.3
Total
487
54.7
404
45.3
891
100
Male
359
74.0
91
22.0
450
50.6
Female
128
26.0
313
78.0
441
49.4
Total
487
100
403
100
891
100
Freshman
173
19.4
120
13.4
293
32.8
Sophomore
187
14.4
149
15.2
336
29.6
Junior
127
20.9
135
16.7
262
37.6
Total
487
100
404
100
891
100
4
0.8
6
1.5
10
1.1
Less than half
164
33.5
165
40.7
329
36.8
Half and more
321
65.6
234
57.7
555
62.0
Total
487
100
404
100
891
100
No one
Friends
within same
discipline
HIST
Note. PE is Physical Education major. HIST is History major.
As shown in Table 2, subjects from two disciplines were almost equally
distributed (PE = 489, HIST = 405). There was a large difference in the gender ratio
between the two major groups. There were more males in PE (74%) and more females in
36
HIST (78%). However, overall, both genders were almost equally distributed in this
dataset (males = 50.6%, females = 49.4%). This sample contained 32.8% freshmen,
29.6% sophomores, and 37.6% juniors. Most students reported that the majority of their
friends were from the same disciple (62%), while only a small portion of students
reported that they have no friends within their same discipline (1.1%).
Drinking Behavior
Classification of drinking status. Based on reported drinking frequency,
participants were divided into three groups. Non-drinkers had not drunk any alcohol in
the past 30 days or the last year; occasional drinkers had drunk at least once in the last
year but not in the past 30 days while regular drinkers had drunk at least once in the past
30 days.
A total of 404 undergraduates (freshman, sophomore, and junior) were included
for analyzing drinking status for HIST majors. According to results in Table 3, 121
students (30%) reported they never drank alcohol in the last year and were classified as
non-drinkers. One hundred and twenty-two subjects (30.2%) who reported only using
alcohol in the last year but not in the past month were classified as occasional drinkers,
one hundred and sixty-one subjects (39.9%) reported they drank in the past month and
were classified as regular drinkers.
37
Table 3
Drinking Status in History Major
Drinking Frequency in the Last Year
Drinking
Frequency in
the Last Month
0 day
Total
0
1-2
3-9
10-19
20-39
40-99
100 days
day
days
days
days
days
days
or more
121
82
25
4
4
5
2
243
1-2 days
0
37
61
22
7
1
2
130
3-5 days
0
0
3
3
5
1
0
12
6-9 days
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
7
10-19 days
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
20 or more
0
0
0
0
1
2
6
9
121
121
91
30
19
11
11
404
Total
non-drinkers
occasional drinkers
regular drinkers
38
Based on the same classification, table 4 shows the drinking frequency among the
PE major sample. Of the 487 undergraduate students (freshman, sophomore, and junior),
30 students (6.16%) were identified as non-drinkers, 78 (16%) were classified as
occasional drinkers, and 379 of them (77.8%) were defined as regular drinkers.
Table 4
Drinking Status in PE major
Drinking Frequency in the Last Year
Drinking
frequency in
0
1-2
3-9
10-19
20-39
40-99
100 days Total
last 30 days
day
days
days
days
days
days
or more
0 day
30
41
19
8
1
3
6
108
1-2 days
0
32
96
88
40
7
2
265
3-5 days
0
0
4
20
24
7
3
58
6-9 days
0
2
1
7
6
7
5
28
10-19 days
0
0
1
1
5
4
3
14
20 or more
0
0
0
0
3
5
6
14
Total
30
75
121
124
79
33
25
487
non-drinkers
occasional drinkers
regular drinkers
39
Drinking status by gender. Table 5 described the drinking status among the
participants by gender. Two discipline groups were pooled together to investigate
subjects’ drinking status. According to this table, a majority of males reported drinking
regularly (80.9%) whereas a smaller portion of females reported drink regularly (39.9%).
Females were more likely to be non-drinkers (29.9%) than males (4.2%). These results
suggested a significant difference in drinking frequency between genders (2 (2) =
171.72, p <.0001).
Table 5
Drinking Status by Gender
Female
Male
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
Non-drinker
132
29.9
19
4.2
151
16.9
Occasional Drinker
133
30.2
67
14.9
200
22.4
Regular Drinker
176
39.9
364
80.9
540
60.6
Total
441
100
450
100
891
100
2 = 171.72 df = 2 p <.0001
40
Drinking status by major. Table 6 shows drinking status by two subgroups (HIST
and PE). As shown, significant difference for drinking frequency exists among students
from two majors. More regular drinkers identified as PE major (N = 379) than student
from History major (N =161). Fewer non-drinkers appeared in the PE major (N = 30)
than student from History major (N = 121). Alcohol consumption was more prevalent
among subjects from the PE discipline than subjects from the History discipline (2 (2)
=146.06, p <.0001).
Table 6
Drinking Status by Major
HIST
PE
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
Non-drinker
121
30.0
30
6.2
151
16.9
Occasional Drinker
122
30.2
78
16.0
200
22.4
Regular Drinker
161
39.9
379
77.8
540
60.6
Total
404
100
487
100
891
100
2 = 146.06 df = 2 p <.0001
Drinking status by grade. Table 7 illustrated drinking status by grade within the
two disciplines (HIST and PE). Overall, more subjects were identified as regular drinkers
in PE (freshman = 140, sophomore = 153, junior = 86) than students in History major
(freshman = 47, sophomore = 53, junior = 61). No significant differences for drinking
status existed among three grades within the HIST discipline (2 (4) = 4.73, p = 0.32) but
there were small difference in PE sample (2 (4) = 11.01, p = 0.03). This finding did not
41
support previous results that suggested drinking frequency increased with higher grade
level (Li, Fang, Stanton, Feigelman, & Dong, 1996; Newman et al., 2011).
Table 7
Drinking Status by Grade
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Drinking Status in HIST
Non-drinker
37
30.8
52
34.9
32
23.7
121
30.0
Occasional
36
30.0
44
29.5
42
31.1
122
30.2
Regular
47
39.2
53
35.6
61
45.2
161
39.9
Total
120
100
149
100
135
100
404
100
2 = 4.73 df = 4 p = 0.32
Drinking Status in PE
Non-drinker
11
6.4
9
4.8
10
7.9
30
6.2
Occasional
22
12.7
25
13.4
31
24.4
78
16.0
Regular
140
80.9
153
81.8
86
67.7
379
77.8
Total
173
100
187
100
127
100
487
100
2 = 11.01 df = 4 p = 0.03
42
Peers’ Alcohol Consumption
Drinking Patterns and Peer’s Alcohol Use. Table 8 compares peers’ drinking and
personal alcohol use. Drinkers were more likely to regard their peers as drinkers than
non-drinkers did. Specifically, more drinkers (74%) reported that more than half of their
male peers were drinkers than non-drinkers (56%) (2 (2) =19.08 p<.0001).
Among females, drinkers (17%) were more likely to classify the majority of their
female peers as drinkers than non-drinkers (8%) (2 (2) =10.80, p=0.013).
Table 8
Drinking Patterns and Peer’s Alcohol Use
Non-drinker
Drinker
TOTAL
N
%
N
%
N
%
Female
more than half
10
8.0
98
17.0
108
15.0
classmates’
half
13
10.0
79
14.0
92
13.0
less than half
102
82.0
398
69.0
500
71.0
Total
125
100
575
100
700
100
drinking
2=10.80 df=2 p=.013
Male
more than half
72
56.0
481
74.0
553
71.2
classmates’
half
19
15.0
46
7.0
65
8.3
less than half
38
29.0
120
19
158
24.4
Total
129
100
647
100
776
100
drinking
2=19.08 df=2 p<.0001
43
Perceived Peer Pressure
Perceived peer pressure scale evaluation. The 8-item perceived peer pressure
scale in this study was adapted from Santor et al. (2000). Subjects were asked to rate each
item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
For each case, an average score from all eight items was used as an indicator of perceived
peer pressure in drinking. The average score of 5 indicated strongest perceived peer
pressure toward alcohol use, while 1 indicated the lowest level of perceived peer pressure
to drinking.
The internal consistency reliability alpha (Cronbach, 1951) for the entire scale
was 0.83. The 874 subjects were randomly split into two samples and analyzed separately
for the assessment of factor analysis. One split sample (N=446) was used to test the
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Another split sample (N=428) was used for the
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). For the first split sample, table 9 displays the item
content and factor loadings for the EFA test using SPSS 22.0. According to the SPSS
output, all items loaded on one factor, which could explain 46.5% of variance in the peer
pressure scale.
44
Table 9
EFA for Peer Pressure Scale from the First Split Sample
Item
Item-total
correlation
If item
deleted
EFA
factor
loading
At times I have drunk alcohol because my best
friend urged me to.
0.65
0.80
.76
4. If my friends are drinking, it would be hard for
me to resist having a drink.
3. I often feel pressured to drink when I normally
would not drink.
0.63
0.80
.75
0.60
0.80
.73
2. At times, I’ve drunk alcohol because my friends
urged me to.
0.56
0.81
.69
6. If my best friend offered toast, it would be hard
for me t to refuse drinking alcohol.
0.54
0.81
.66
1. If my friends offer toast, it would be hard for me
to say no.
0.50
0.82
.62
5. I’ve felt pressured to get drunk at parties.
0.48
0.82
.61
8. If my best friend urged me to get drunk at a party
I would have a drink.
0.48
0.82
.60
Note. The reliability α = 0.83 for the first split sample.
The second split sample was used for the CFA and model fit indexes by Mplus
7.0. Table 10 indicates the item content and factor loadings for the CFA test. Overall, six
items out of eight contributed nice factor loadings to the common factor. Item 5 (0.47)
and item 8 (0.46) presented relatively lower indices for factor loading.
45
Table 10
CFA for Peer Pressure Scale from the Second Split Sample
Item
Factor Loading
Unstandardized
Estimate
Standardized
Estimate
7. At times I have drunk alcohol because my best
friend urged me to.
4. If my friends are drinking, it would be hard for
me to resist having a drink.
3. I often feel pressured to drink when I normally
would not drink.
2. At times, I’ve drunk alcohol because my friends
urged me to.
6. If my best friend offered toast, it would be hard
for me t to refuse drinking alcohol.
1. If my friends offer toast, it would be hard for me
to say no.
5. I’ve felt pressured to get drunk at parties.
1.38
.65
.74
.74
1.35
.65
1.17
.62
1.29
.60
1.59
.53
.98
.47
8. If my best friend urged me to get drunk at a
party I would have a drink.
1.03
.46
To assess the model fit for the perceived peer pressure, a set of fit indices such as
the chi-squares statistics, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA),
Bentler’s Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Standardized
Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) were computed using Mplus with maximum
likelihood estimation.
Since the chi-square is easily affected by a large sample size such as the situation
in this study (N = 428), it is difficult to obtain a nonsignificant chi-square for this model.
46
Other indices (TLI=0.86, SRMR=0.05), however, suggested further modifications to get
a decent fitting model (see table 11 indicated below).
Perceived peer pressure scale modifications. According to the model
modifications indices, there might be covariances between error terms associated with
item 2 and item 3, error terms associated with item 3 and item 5. Several trials were made
to obtain a better fit for this model. As presented in table 11, when certain items were
dropped, we got a better model fit compared to the use of the entire 8 items for the
perceived peer pressure scale.
Table 11
Goodness-of-Fit Indicators of Models for Peer Pressure
Factor model
2
df
RMSEA
CFI
TLI
SRMR
Entire 8 items
99.45***
20
0.10
0.90
0.86
0.05
Drop item 5
66.99***
14
0.10
0.93
0.89
0.05
Drop item 2
63.77***
14
0.09
0.92
0.88
0.04
Drop item 3
43.15***
14
0.07
0.95
0.93
0.04
Drop item 2&3
24.76**
9
0.07
0.97
0.95
0.03
Drop item 3&5
36.04***
9
0.09
0.95
0.92
0.04
Note. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Dropping item 2&3 got higher indices values in CFI, TLI, and SRMR, but does
not make sense in theory. Item 2 has a good correlation with the rest of the items (>0.5)
and nice factor loading to the common factor (>0.6). Its meaning also nicely targeted
overt peer pressure in the alcohol drinking context. Dropping item 3 and item 5 resulted
47
in the same level of CFI compared to dropping item 3 alone, but provided worse indices
in RMSEA, SRMR, and TLI, which did not support a good fitting model.
Overall, dropping item 3 did not obtain the most optimistic values for all fit
indices. However, using a combination of SRMR (good models < .08), the RMSEA
(good models < .06) (Hu & Bentler, 1999) with CFI=0.95, TLI=0.93, a decision can be
made that the model is most strongly supported by this dataset. One possible reason for
the bad function of item 3 is its failure in specifying from whom subjects got pressure to
drink or the drinking situation in which subjects experienced pressures. Its vague
meaning may result in its bad function for assessing peer pressure. Table 12 shows the
factor loadings for each of the remaining 7 items. The reliability alpha is 0.80.
Table 12
Unstandardized and Standardized Loadings by CFA for Peer Pressure
Item
7. At times I have drunk alcohol because my best
friend urged me to.
4. If my friends are drinking, it would be hard for
me to resist having a drink.
2. At times, I’ve drunk alcohol because my friends
urged me to.
6. If my best friend offered toast, it would be hard
for me t to refuse drinking alcohol.
Factor Loading
Unstandardized
Estimate
Standardized
Estimate
1.35
.65
1.53
.74
1.05
.57
1.34
.64
1. If my friends offer toast, it would be hard for me 1.0
to say no.
5. I’ve felt pressured to get drunk at parties.
.86
.54
8. If my best friend urged me to get drunk at a
party I would have a drink.
.49
1.07
.43
48
Perceived peer pressure by drinking status, major, gender, and grade. Table 13
shows perceived peer pressure by drinking status, majors, and gender. According to the
one-way ANOVA test, there were significant differences in perceived peer pressure
scores among non-drinkers, occasional drinkers, and regular drinkers (F (2, 801) = 43.13,
p<.0001). Specifically, subjects who had not drunk alcohol in the past year perceived the
lowest peer pressure to drink (pressure mean = 2.47) while regular drinkers reported the
highest level of perceived peer pressure (pressure mean = 3.08). The Bonferoni post hoc
tests indicated that three pairwise comparisons (non-drinkers vs. occasional drinkers,
occasional vs. regular drinkers, regular vs. non-drinkers) differed significantly (p <
.0001). Results from the one-way ANOVA test displayed no significant differences
across grade levels in perception of peer pressure to use alcohol (F (2, 801) = 0.31,
p=0.74).
Based on results of t-tests, students in History major were found to have
significantly lower perception of peer pressure in alcohol use than students from PE
major (t (802) =-8.27, p<.0001). Females reported significantly lower peer pressure
toward alcohol use than males (t (802) =-10.77, p<.0001).
49
Table 13
Comparing Peer Pressure by Drinking, Major, Gender, and Grade
Drinking
Drinking
Status
Status
F =43.13
Occasional
2.75
0.72
Regular
3.08
0.70
HIST
2.66
0.77
PE
3.10
0.73
Female
2.63
0.73
Male
3.18
0.72
Freshman
2.92
0.72
Sophomore
2.92
0.82
Junior
2.87
0.78
df =2 p<.0001
Major
t = -8.27 df =802
p<.0001
Gender
t = -10.77 df =802
p<.0001
Grade
Levels
F =0.31
None
Peer Pressure
Mean
SD
2.47
0.86
df =2 p=0.74
50
Self-regulation Self-efficacy
The scale of Chinese Alcohol Self-regulation Self-efficacy (CASSE) was used to
assess individuals’ self-confidence in resisting peer pressure and personal cravings to use
alcohol in the Chinese cultural context. The CASSE was originally developed for high
school students in China and has been tested for its reliability and validity. However, in
the current study, this scale was with a college student population. It is highly possible
that the age gap and developmental process may impair the reliability of this scale.
Therefore, the CFA was done using Mplus with Maximum Likelihood (ML). Results,
along with key words of each item, are shown in table 14. Overall, results indicated that
the all items contributed good loadings to the common factor, having loadings of larger
than 0.5. According to the primary fit indices recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999),
the SRMR showed good fit (0.06<0.08). The recommended secondary fit indices showed
only marginal fit (RMSEA=0.10, CFI =0.82). Since the CASSE is a previously published
scale, these fit indices do not indicate a need for modifications, especially given the item
factor loadings and coefficient alpha for the individual subscales.
51
Table 14
CFA for Chinese Alcohol Self-regulation Self-efficacy
Briefed Item
Unstandar
dized
Standard
ized
1. Pressure to drink when at their homes
1.00
0.78
25. Pressure to drink at a friend's birthday party
1.18
0.83
2. Pressure to drink at a festival
1.05
0.78
24. Pressure to drink at own birthday party
1.18
0.77
7. Pressure to toast
0.98
0.72
23. Urge to drink when all friends are drinking
1.02
0.74
4. Pressure to drink on a date
0.93
0.62
3. Pressure to go to a "Western" style bar or club
0.77
0.57
13. Urge to get drunk when feeling joyful
1.08
0.78
12. Urge to get drunk to improve mood
1.17
0.73
5. Urge to drink to improve mood
1.00
0.65
6. Urge to drink when feeling joyful
1.06
0.65
8. Pressure to get drunk at a party
1.00
0.85
9. Pressure to get drunk at a festival
0.99
0.83
10. Pressure to get drunk on a date
0.90
0.70
11. Drinking pressure in a "Western" style bar or club
0.80
0.73
14. Pressure to excessive toasting at a banquet
0.78
0.73
26. Pressure to get drunk at own birthday party
0.93
0.70
27. Pressure to get drunk at a friend's birthday party
0.87
0.74
Factor 1. Situational Social α=0.90
Factor 2. Mood α=0.81
Factor 3. Excessive α=0.90
52
28. Pressure to get drunk at weekend camp
0.63
0.64
18. Urge to drink to impress your friends
1.20
0.85
19. Urge to drink to impress boyfriend /girlfriend
1.18
0.80
16. Urge to drink to feel more comfortable
1.12
0.76
17. Urge to drink to feel more comfortable on a date
1.16
0.71
20. Urge to drink with a delicious meal
0.98
0.65
21. Urge to show drinking capacity
0.93
0.66
22. Pressure to show how well you can "hold" your
0.90
0.63
Factor 4. Social α=0.88
15.
Pressure from host’s offer
1.00
0.54
alcohol
Note. 2 (344) = 3416.10, p<.0001, RMSEA=0.10, CFI= 0.82, TLI =0.80, SRMR=0.06
Major, Peer Pressure, Self-efficacy, and Drinking Frequency
Variables used in the path model. A path analysis using Mplus was conducted to
estimate the relationship among major, peer pressure, self-efficacy, and drinking
frequency. The independent variable of major was dummy coded as 0 for observations
from HIST and 1 for observations from PE. The outcome variable of drinker frequency
was treated as a categorical variable including non-drinkers, occasional drinkers, and
regular drinkers. These three categories were treated as ordinal ones because it was
hypothesized that there was an inherent ordering from non-drinking to occasional
drinking and then to regular drinking situation. The peer pressure and self-efficacy were
computed as continuous variables. Table 15 indicated the means and standard deviation
of two continuous variables.
53
Table 15
Means and Standard Deviations for Each Variable
Variable
Total sample
PE
HIST
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
2.9
0.77
3.1
0.73
2.66
0.75
Situational Social
60.0
23.37
53.82
22.05
67.63
22.72
Mood
76.67
21.86
73.45
22.82
80.66
19.92
Excessive
75.85
20.09
71.57
20.95
81.12
17.63
Social
75.75
19.69
72.60
20.41
79.63
18.06
Peer pressure
Self-efficacy
The path model was tested in Mplus using the weighted least squares means and
variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimators. The fit indices suggest an adequate model given
the present dataset (CFI= .93, RMSEA = 0.097, WRMR=0.97). The overall explained
variances (R2) for each predicted variable in the path model were drinking= 0.39, peer
pressure= 0.08, self-efficacy= 0.23.
Predicting role of major in peer pressure, self-efficacy, and drinking. As shown in
table 16, the predicting role of major in the perception of peer pressure from the path
model show that majoring in HIST is related with lower perceived peer pressure, while
majoring in the PE major is related with higher pressures (coefficient=0.28, p<.0001).
The predicting role of major in alcohol self-regulation self-efficacy from the path model
show that majoring in HIST was associated with higher self-efficacy than being in the PE
major (coefficient =-0.41, p<.0001). The predicting role of major in the likelihood of
54
drinking from the path model show that majoring in HIST is related with lower drinking
frequency than being in the PE major (coefficient=0.33, p<.0001).
Table 16
Path Model for Relationship among Major, Peer Pressure, Self-efficacy, and Drinking
Variable
Unstandardi
zed
Standardi
zed
S.E.
z
Self-efficacy
Situational
1.00
0.814
/
/
Mood
social
Excessive
0.78***
0.67
0.04
18.53
0.94***
0.88
0.04
24.75
Social
0.86***
0.81
0.04
22.23
Peer pressure
-9.99***
-0.41
0.90
-11.15
Major
-6.12***
-0.16
1.29
-4.74
Self-efficacy
-0.02***
-0.40
0.01
-10.07
Peer pressure
0.12***
0.08
0.06
2.11
Major
0.74***
0.33
0.09
8.74
Major
0.44***
0.28
0.05
8.43
Self-efficacy
Drinking
Drinking
Peer pressure
Note. The 2 (11) = 101.92, RMSEA=0.097, CFI= 0.93, WRMR=0.97.
***
p<.001. Major is coded 0 for HIST and 1 for PE.
Predicting role of peer pressure and self-efficacy in drinking. As shown in figure
2, all path coefficients were significant at the p< .0001 level. As the peer pressure
increased, the self-efficacy for refusing alcohol dinking tended to decrease (standardized
55
path coefficient = -0.41). As the self-efficacy decreased, the likelihood of drinking
behavior increased (standardized path coefficient = -0.40). Consistent with previous
findings, perceived peer pressures were positively associated with a higher frequency in
alcohol drinking (standardized path coefficient = 0.08).
Selfefficacy
-.16***
-.40***
-.41***
Major
.28***
Peer
pressure
.08***
Drinking
Frequency
.33***
Figure 2. Path model predicting the relationship among major, peer pressure, selfefficacy and drinking. ***p < .001.
Indirect effects. Mplus 7.0 was used to estimate mediating factors for the
relationship between major and drinking frequency. Major had an indirect effect on
drinking through peer pressure and self-efficacy (standardized coefficient =0.05, z=5.97,
p<.0001). Peer pressure had an indirect effect on drinking through self-efficacy
(standardized coefficient =0.16, z=8.20, p<.0001). Major had an indirect effect on selfefficacy through peer pressure (standardized coefficient = -.012, z= -6.64, p<.0001).
56
Chapter 5 Discussion
Peer Influence on College Drinking
Most of previous studies focused on negative consequences of alcohol
consumption and advocate either reduction or elimination of alcohol use. However,
alcohol use is an expected part of social functions (Rapaport, Minelli, Angera, & Thayer,
1999). It is also necessary to keep in consideration that alcohol use in China may not be a
choice, but a cultural obligation to display intimacy and loyalty to friends. Refusal to
drinking alcohol tends to cause adverse effect on social interaction, and people who offer
alcohol are likely to be offended by the refusal. A mere emphasis on harmful effects of
alcohol consumption and simply urging student to abstain from alcohol drinking might
have little impact on controlling excessive and irresponsible drinking among college
students. Instead of desirable result, such attempts might produce the opposite response
from students. Therefore, it is not pragmatic to teach Chinese college students to abstain
from alcohol all the time when socializing. Instead, harm reduction programs can be
effectively adopted to intervene in alcohol related behaviors including but not limited to
consumption.
The first hypothesis of this study is that higher peer pressure will be associated
with higher drinking frequency. Results of the present research have indicated that
students who perceived higher peer pressure tended to drink more often than students
who perceived lower peer pressure. One implication of this result is that educational
strategies can be developed to teach students social skills to resist pressure from peers.
57
Enhancing college students’ protective strategies (Howard et al., 2007), according to
Chinese cultural and social situation, might be beneficial in alcohol education. For
example, several strategies can be taught to help students avoid drinking when possible,
such as how to say “no” to alcohol offers. Students can practice more sophisticated
strategies to keep from heavy drinking that neither embarrass nor humiliate peers. For
example, acting like a drunken person or acting sick may be useful to reduce alcohol
offers from peers.
Another implication of the study is to recognize the importance of peer influence
on behavior of young people and to utilize the positive aspects of the influence (Swadi &
Zeitlin, 1988). Since negative effects of peer pressure have been proved in a large body
of studies, it is then reasonable to assume that peers can also be used for positive
purposes in maintaining safe drinking behaviors and discouraging risky health behavior
(Swadi & Zeitlin, 1987). For example, when a person gets drunk, his/her friends
preferably from the same gender, can help him/her by not offering any drink and by
stopping him/her from drinking more alcohol.
The Protective Factor of Self-efficacy
The second hypothesis of this study is that greater peer pressure will be associated
with lower alcohol self-regulation self-efficacy. Results from the path analysis supported
this hypothesis. One of the possible explanations is that the aspiration to be accepted and
become popular among peers leads them to conform to peer pressure of drinking and
decrease their self-efficacy in resisting pressures. There might be an issue of the lack of
interpersonal and communication skills in some students. They have limited strategies to
58
interact with peers, and are more concerned about how others will react when they are
approached. They are shy and have few strategies to interact with peers. After drinking
alcohol, they feel more relaxed and comfortable in communicating. The aspiration to be
accepted and become popular among peers leads students to conform to peer pressure to
drink. They assume not drinking or refusing the offer to drink from others in the group
might limit their chances of socialization in the group or even increase their isolation.
Refusing to be involved in drinking means that they face the risk of losing their limited
chance of joining social events.
The third hypothesis of the present research is that lower self-regulation selfefficacy will predict higher drinking frequency. Result from the present data supported
this hypothesis. A possible explanation is that students who wish to resist drinking
pressure do not know strategies to resist drinking or are not sure whether they want to
resist it for fear of offending friends’ good intentions. Students might be regarded as
ungrateful and get negative evaluations if they decide not to drink alcohol.
Interventions can be used to improve students’ cognitive defenses in resisting peer
pressures. Hence after being trained in self-efficacy, it can be expected that students
would be more assertive to refuse alcohol offers and resist the drinking pressure from
peers. Further, the training can be useful in increasing the immunity to peer influence,
which may lead to desire to refrain from drinking for the sake of approval and
recognition among peers.
Another implication is that alcohol self-regulation self-efficacy can be taught to
reduce alcohol related risks among college students. Compared to young adolescents,
59
college students are more mature in cognition. With higher self-regulation ability, they
are able to control and keep themselves safe while consuming alcohol due to their ability
to higher self-regulation. Interventions can be used to manage their drinking behaviors by
teaching them to drink responsibly. For example, helping to understand different types of
alcohol and educating about consequences of consuming such drinks can be helpful to
students in understanding the characteristics of alcohol and develop the ability to regulate
the amount and pace of alcohol consumption accordingly. Similarly, helping students
better understand personal drinking limits can be effective in students self-regulation in
their drinking habit (Howard et al., 2007). Also, some other self-regulatory skills like
drinking at a slow pace and eating food before drinking can also be taught to college
students to reduce the intoxication when drinking alcohol.
Group Difference
The fourth hypothesis of this research is that there will be a group difference in
the level of reported peer pressure on drinking beliefs. Findings from the study have
shown differences in experienced peer pressure toward alcohol use by discipline under
study, PE major experiencing higher pressure than HIST major. This difference may have
resulted due to the difference in the prevalence of alcohol use in both groups under study.
Theoretically it is possible to reshape students’ attitude toward risky drinking behavior by
modifying school’s policies aimed at regulating drinking in colleges, improving
advertisements and discouraging drinking group norm.
In addition, educational measures and preventive techniques can be utilized to
create an alternative social norm by forming a group of students who are not willing to
60
drink alcohol. The two forces comprised of both pressure to drink and reluctance to drink
can generate a balancing effect, thus counteracting the effect of negative peer influence
and pressure (Swadi & Zeitlin, 1988).
Gender Difference
This study also hypothesized that there will be gender a gender difference in
perceived peer pressure and consequent drinking behaviors. Results have shown that both
females and males were affected by peer pressure in terms of drinking behavior. Higher
level of perceived peer pressure toward alcohol use was reported in males. This result is
similar to the finding in the study by Swadi and Zeitlin (1988), whereas the finding
contradicts to some other literature, which showed the presence of stronger peer pressure
on females than males (Brown, 1982) and the tendency of girls tend to be more likely
influenced by their peers than boys (Kandel, 1985). A general conclusion cannot be
drawn due to controversial findings mentioned above. The controversy may be due to
presence of differences in population, culture and age of the people being studied.
With respect to the perception of pressures, data obtained have indicated a
difference in alcohol drinking between males and females. Males in this sample reported
higher frequency of alcohol drinking than females. Our results have supported the
findings in previous studies that men tend to perceive more permissive alcohol norms
than females (Adams & Nagoshi, 1999; Lo, 1995; Nagoshi, Wood, Cote, & Abbit, 1994).
A possible explanation for such finding can be the interpretation of drinking alcohol as a
symbol of masculinity in the Chinese tradition (Hao et al., 1995; Zhang, Wang, Lu, Qiu,
and Fang, 2004). Males are more likely than females to compete in drinking games. They
61
tend to challenge each other to drink more, despite having the onset of drunkenness
symptoms such as alcohol flushing in order to prove their masculinity, while females
have a tendency to discourage excessive drinking after detecting drinkers’ flushing
(Newman et al., 2011).
The important implication of the result in the study is the necessity of preventive
efforts to be targeted to specific characteristics of gender to produce desirable impact.
Education related to alcohol use and its effect can be focused on males, since they are
more likely to be provoked to drinking alcohol heavily by their male friends. For
instance, if misconception among males to considered drinking alcohol as a portrayal of
masculinity can be eliminated through education and awareness, reduction in drinking
frequency, and further cut back on possible harmful effect on health can be achieved.
Limitations
First, the most important limitation of the study is that the finding of the study
cannot be generalized to the entire country because of the fact that the study site was
limited to only one city in China, a country where customs and traditions vary from one
region to the other, or even from one city to the other. For instance, people in the northern
region of China have tendency to heavy drinking as compared to their southern
counterparts due to cultural and geographical factors (Hao et al., 2005). Samples from
more areas in China could be used in further studies.
Similarly, this study is limited to one university. These factors can be studied in a
broader range of college drinking contexts (e.g. key university, general university, and
62
vocational university) and further study can include larger number and categories of peer
group.
Third, this study is dependent on cross-sectional and self-reported data.
Retrospective surveys are subjected to self-report bias. Students may have inaccurately
represented the nature of their responses to overt peer influences.
In conclusion, alcohol consumption was found to be prevalent among college
students in the study. Students under higher peer pressure are more likely to drink more
often. The influence of peer pressure was mediated by subjects’ self-efficacy to resist
pressures toward alcohol use. Results from the study conducted have underscored the
importance of peer influence and students’ cognitive defense in alcohol consumption.
These findings provide critical implications for alcohol education and intervention of
alcohol abuse among college students in China. They offer implications for the
development of educational programs targeted to improve students’ cognitive defense
capacity to resist peer pressure in drinking alcohol.
63
References
Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college
students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 14, 118–128.
Abdullah, A. S., & Fielding, R. (2002). Patterns of cigarette smoking , alcohol use and in
Hong Kong. The American Journal on Addictions, 11(3), 235–246.
doi:10.1080/1055049029008801
Adams, C. E., & Nagoshi, C. T. (1999). Changes over one semester in drinking game
playing and alcohol use and problems in a college student sample. Substance Abuse :
Official Publication of the Association for Medical Education and Research in
Substance Abuse, 20(2), 97–106. doi:10.1080/08897079909511398
Alcohol in Moderation. (2008). “Swings and Roundabouts”- An Analysis of Consumption
Trends. Retrieved from http://www.aim-digest.com/gateway/pages/s&p drinking
patterns/articles/trends 2005.htm
Alva, S. A. (1998). Self-reported alcohol use of college fraternity and sorority members.
Journal of College Student Development, 39(1), 3–10.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against
a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–
70.
Baer, J. S. (1994). Effects of college residence on perceived norms for alcohol
consumption: An examination of the first year in college. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 8(1), 43–50.
Baer, J. S., & Carney, M. M. (1993). Biases in the perceptions of the consequences of
alcohol use among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 54(1),
54–60.
Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (1995). High-risk drinking across the
transition from high school to college. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental
Research, 19(1), 54–58. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.1995.tb01472.x
Baer, J. S., Stacy, A., & Larimer, M. (1991). Biases in the perception of drinking norms
among college students: Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 52(6), 580–586.
64
Baldwin, A. R., Oei, T. P. S., & Young, R. (1993). To drink or not to drink: The
differential role of alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy in quantity
and frequency of alcohol consumption. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17(6),
511–530. doi:10.1007/BF01176076
Bámaca, M. Y., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2006). Testing a model of resistance to peer
pressure among Mexican-origin adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
35(4), 631–645. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9055-4
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences
in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
38(1), 92–113. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90028-2
Bartholow, B. D., Sher, K. J., & Krull, J. L. (2003). Changes in heavy drinking over the
third decade of life as a function of collegiate fraternity and sorority involvement: A
prospective, multilevel analysis. Health Psychology, 2, 616–626.
Berkowitz, A. D., & Perkins, H. W. (1986). Resident advisers as role models: A
comparison of drinking patterns of resident advisers and their peers. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 27(2), 146–155.
Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents.
Developmental Psychology, 15(6), 608–616.
Berndt, T. J., Miller, K. E., & Park, K. (1989). Adolescents’ perceptions of friends' and
parents' influence on aspects of their school adjustment. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 9(4), 419–435. doi:10.1177/0272431689094004
Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the
research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13(4), 391–424. doi:10.1016/S08993289(01)00098-0
Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2006). How the quality of peer relationships influences
college alcohol use. Drug and Alcohol Review, 25(4), 361–370.
doi:10.1080/09595230600741339
Britt, D. W., & Campbell, E. Q. (1977). A longitudianal analysis of alcohol use,
environmental conductiveness and normative structure. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 38(9), 1640–1647.
65
Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college
grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 405–410.
Brown, B. B. (1982). The extent and effects of peer pressure among high school students:
A retrospective analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11(2), 121–133.
doi:10.1007/BF01834708
Brown, B. B., Clasen, D. R., & Eicher, S. a. (1986). Perceptions of peer pressure, peer
conformity dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents.
Developmental Psychology, 22(4), 521–530. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.22.4.521
Brown, B. B., Lohr, M. J., & McClenahan, E. L. (1986). Early adolescents’ perceptions
of peer pressure. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 6(2), 139–154.
doi:10.1177/0272431686062005
Burk, W. J., Vorst, H. van der, Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2011). Alcohol use and friendship
dynamics: selection and socialization in early-, middle-, and late-adolescent peer
networks. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(1), 89–98.
Burke, R., & Stephens, R. (1999). Social anxiety and drinking in college students: A
social cognitive theory analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(5), 513–530.
doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00058-0
Carey, K. B. (1993). Situational determinants of heavy drinking among college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40(2), 217–220.
Carey, K. B. (1995). Heavy drinking contexts and indices of problem drinking among
college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 56(3), 287–292.
Chi, I., Kitano, H. H. L., & Lubben, J. E. (1988). Male chinese drinking behavior in Los
Angeles. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 49(01), 21–25.
Christiansen, M., Vik, P. W., & Jarchow, A. (2002). College student heavy drinking in
social contexts versus alone. Addictive Behaviors, 27(3), 393–404.
doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(01)00180-0
Clasen, D. R., & Brown, B. B. (1985). The multidimensionality of peer pressure in
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14(6), 451–468.
doi:10.1007/BF02139520
Cleveland, H. H., & Wiebe, R. P. (2003). The moderation of adolescent-to-peer similarity
in tobacco and alcohol use by school levels of substance use. Child Development,
74(1), 279–291. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00535
66
Cochrane, J., Chen, H., Conigrave, katherine M., & Hao, W. (2003). Alcohol use in
China. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 38(6), 537–542. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agg111
Cooper, M. L. (2002). Alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among college students and
youth: evaluating the evidence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 14, 101–
117.
Crockett, L. J., Raffaelli, M., & Shen, Y.-L. (2006). Linking self-regulation and risk
proneness to risky sexual behavior: Pathways through peer pressure and early
substance use. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(4), 503–525.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00505.x
DiClemente, C. C., Carbonari, J. P., Montgomery, R. P. G., & Hughes, S. O. (1994). The
alcohol abstinence self-efficacy scale. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs,
55(2), 141–148.
Dielman, T. E., Campanelli, P. C., Shope, J. T., & Butchart, a. T. (1987). Susceptibility to
peer pressure, self-esteem, and health locus of control as correlates of adolescent
substance abuse. Health Education Quarterly, 14(2), 207–221.
doi:10.1177/109019818701400207
Dong, Y., Gao, B., Zi, L., Yang, Y., An, J., Wu, G., & Yang, Y. (2006). Risk health
behaviors in Physical Education major in Dalian 大理学院体育专业大学生健康危
险行为现状. China Journal School Health, 27(4), 337–338.
Farrell, A. D., & White, K. S. (1998). Peer influences and drug use among urban
adolescents: Family structure and parent-adolescent relationship as protective factors.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 248–258. doi:10.1037//0022006X.66.2.248
Fondacaro, M. R., & Heller, K. (1983). Social support factors and drinking among
college student males. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12(4), 285–299.
doi:10.1007/BF02088727
Gilles, D. M., Turk, C. L., & Fresco, D. M. (2006). Social anxiety, alcohol expectancies,
and self-efficacy as predictors of heavy drinking in college students. Addictive
Behaviors, 31(3), 388–398. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.020
Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Lewis, F. M. (2008). Health Behavior and Health Education:
Theory, Research, and Practice. San Fransisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Griffiths, S., Lau, J. T., Chow, J. K., Lee, S. S., Kan, P. Y., & Lee, S. (2006). Alcohol use
among entrants to a Hong Kong University. Alcohol and Alcoholism (Oxford,
Oxfordshire), 41(5), 560–565. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agl047
67
Gusfield, J. R. (1961). The structural context of college drinking. Quarterly Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 22, 428–443.
Han, C., Wang, K., & Ye, G. (1994). A study on alcohol drinking pattern in freshmen and
sophomores 低年级大学生饮酒行为研究. Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine,
28(5), 291–293.
Hanson, D. J. (1977). Drinking problems: A test of alternative explanations. A Journal of
Human Behavior, 14, 49–51.
Hao, W., Chen, H., & Su, Z. (2005). China: Alcohol today. Addiction (Abingdon,
England), 100(6), 737–41. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01036.x
Hao, W., Derson, Y., Shuiyuan, X., Lingjiang, L. I., & Yalin, Z. (1999). Alcohol
consumption and alcohol-related problems : Chinese experience from six area
samples , 1994. Addiction, 94(10), 1467–1476.
Hasking, P. a., & Oei, T. P. S. (2002). The differential role of alcohol expectancies,
drinking refusal self-efficacy and coping resources in predicting alcohol
consumption in community and clinical samples. Addiction Research & Theory,
10(5), 465–494. doi:10.1080/1606635021000034049
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for
alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications
for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64–105.
Howard, D. E., Griffin, M., Boekeloo, B., Lake, K., & Bellows, D. (2007). Staying safe
while consuming alcohol: a qualitative study of the protective strategies and
informational needs of college freshmen. Journal of American College Health, 56(3),
247–254. doi:10.3200/JACH.56.3.247-254
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Isralowitz, R., & Hong, ong T. (1988). Singapore: a study of university students’ drinking
behaviour. Addiction, 83(11), 1321–1323. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1988.tb03043.x
Johnson, P. B. (1989). Reactions, expectancies, and college students’ drinking.
Psychological Reports, 65, 1245–1246. doi:10.2466/pr0.1989.65.3f.1245
68
Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex
etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25(2), 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.17459125.1987.tb00800.x
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1987). National trends in drug use
and related factors among American high school students and young adults, 19751986 (p. 134). National Institute on Drug Abuse, U.S. Deptarment of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration.
Kandel, D. B. (1985). On processes of peer influences in adolescent drug use: a
developmental perspective. Advances in Alcohol & Substance Abuse, 4(3-4), 139–
163. doi:10.1300/J251v04n03_07
Keefe, K. (1994). Perceptions of normative social pressure and attitudes toward alcohol
use : Changes during adolescence. Journal of Studies, 55(1), 46–54.
Kilty, K. M. (1978). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of drinking
behavior. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 39, 1178–1194.
Kinard, B. R., & Webster, C. (2010). The effects of advertising, social influences, and
self-efficacy on adolescent tobacco use and alcohol consumption. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 44(1), 24–43. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01156.x
Kiran-esen, B. (2003). Examining the adolescents ’ smoking according to their peer
pressure levels and gender. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3(1), 179–188.
Klein, H. (1991). College students’ attitudes toward the use of alcoholic beverages.
Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 37(3), 352–361.
Knee, C. R., & Neighbors, C. (2002). Self-determination, perception of peer pressure,
and drinking among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(3),
522–543. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00228.x
Koelega, H. S. (1995). Alcohol and vigilance performance: a review.
Psychopharmacology, 118(3), 233–249. doi:10.1007/BF02245951
Kremer, M., & Levy, D. (2008). Peer effects and alcohol use among college students.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(3), 189–206.
Lashbrook, J. T. (2000). Fitting in: exploring the emotional dimension of adolescent peer
pressure. Adolescence, 35(140), 747–757.
69
Lau, R. R., Quadrel, M., & Hartman, K. (1990). Development and change of young
adults’ preventive health beliefs and behavior: Influence from parents and peers.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31(3), 240–259.
Leichliter, J. S., Meilman, P. W., Presley, C. A., & Cashin, J. R. (1998). Alcohol use and
related consequences among students with varying levels of involvement in college
athletics. Journal of American College Health, 46(6), 257–262.
doi:10.1080/07448489809596001
Leng, Q. (2009). Study on behavior, expectation and recognition of drinking alcoholl and
their related factors of college students in Yantai 烟台市在校大学生饮酒行为、期
望、认知及相关因素研究. Thesis. Shandong University. Retrieved from
http://max.book118.com/html/2014/0301/6208048.shtm
Leng, Q., Jia, C., Yan, X., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., & Wang, Z. (2009). Investigation on
status of alcohol use in college students in Yantai 2008 年烟台市部分高等学校大
学生饮酒情况调查. Prevention Medicine Tribune, 15(2), 135–136.
Li, X., Fang, X., Stanton, B., Feigelman, S., & Dong, Q. (1996). The rate and pattern of
alcohol consumption among Chinese adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health,
19(5), 353–361.
Li, Y. (1993). The origin of grain brewing in China 我国谷物酿酒起源新论.
Archaeology, 6, 534–542.
Liu, G. Z., Wang, H. Q., & Liu, C. Y. (2001). A survey of drinking and its drinkingrelated problems among college students. Acta Academiae Medicinae Qingdao
Universitatis, 37, 153–154.
Lo, C. C. (1995). Gender differences in collegiate alcohol abuse. Journal of Drug Issues,
25, 817–836.
Lo, C. C., & Globetti, G. (1993). A partial analysis of the campus influence on drinking
behavior: Students who enter college as nondrinkers. Journal of Drug Issues, 23(4),
715–725.
Lu, Z.-P., Engs, R. C., & Hanson, D. J. (1997). Research note: The drinking behaviors of
a sample of university students in Nanning, Guangxi Province, People’s Republic of
China. Substance Use & Misuse, 32(4), 495–506.
Ma, S., & Fan, C. (2000). A study on alcohl drinking patterns and reasons in college
students 大学生饮酒行为及动因研究. Modern Preventive Medicine, 27(1), 56–58.
70
Maddox, G. L. (Ed.). (1970). The Domesticated Drug: Drinking Among Collegians. The
Family Coordinator (Vol. 21, p. 353). New Haven, CT: New College and University
Press. doi:10.2307/582887
Martin, C. M., & Hoffman, M. A. (1993). Alcohol expectancies, living environment, peer
influence, and gender: A model of college-student drinking. Journal of College
Student Development, 34(3), 206–211.
Mooney, D. K., & Corcoran, K. J. (1991). Personal and perceived peer alcohol
expectancies: Their influences on alcohol consumption. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 5, 85–92.
Nagoshi, C. T., Wood, M. D., Cote, C. C., & Abbit, S. M. (1994). College drinking game
participation within the context of other predictors of alcohol use and problems.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 8, 203–213.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2002). High-Risk Drinking in
College : what we know and what we need to learn. Bethesda, MD. Retrieved from
http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/FINALPanel1.pdf
Neighbors, C., Larimer, M. E., Geisner, I. M., & Knee, C. R. (2004). Feeling controlled
and drinking motives among college students: Contingent self-esteem as a mediator.
Self and Identity, 3, 207–224. doi:10.1080/13576500444000029
Newman, I. M., Jinnai, I., Zhao, J., Huang, Z., Pu, J., & Qian, L. (2011). Social meaning
of alcohol-related flushing among university students in China. Asia-Pacific Journal
of Public Health, 25(5), 409–419. doi:10.1177/1010539511420702
Newman, I. M., Qian, L., Shell, D. F., Qu, M., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Assessing alcohol
expectancy and developing its measurement 饮酒期望的衡量以及中国青少年饮酒
期望量表的开发. Chinese Journal of Heal Statistics, 23(5), 426–432.
Newman, I. M., Shell, D. F., Qu, M., Xue, J., & Maas, M. (2006). Adolescent alcohol use,
mixed methods research approach. Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities,
28(3), 21–28.
Newman, P. R., & Newman, B. M. (1976). Early adolescence and its conflict: Group
identity versus alienation. Adolescence, 11(42), 261–274.
Nezlek, J. B., Pilkington, C. J., & Bilbro, K. G. (1994). Moderation in excess: binge
drinking and social interaction among college students. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 55(3), 342–351.
71
Nye, E. C., Agostinelli, G., & Smith, J. E. (1999). Enhancing alcohol problem
recognition: A self-regulation model for the effects of self-focusing and normative
information. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 60(5), 685–693.
O’Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2002). Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use
among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 14, 23–
39.
Oei, T. P. S., Fergusson, S., & Lee, N. K. (1998). The differential role of alcohol
expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy in problem and nonproblem drinkers.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 59(6), 704–711.
Oei, T. P. S., & Jardim, C. L. (2007). Alcohol expectancies, drinking refusal self-efficacy
and drinking behaviour in Asian and Australian students. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 87, 281–287. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.08.019
Oei, T. P. S., & Morawska, a. (2004). A cognitive model of binge drinking: The influence
of alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy. Addictive Behaviors,
29(1), 159–179. doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(03)00076-5
Oostveen, T., Knibbe, R., & De Vries, H. (1996). Social influences on young adults’
alcohol consumption: Norms, modeling, pressure, socializing, and conformity.
Addictive Behaviors, 21(2), 187–197. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(95)00052-6
Orford, J., Krishnan, M., Balaam, M., Everitt, M., & Van der Graaf, K. (2004).
University student drinking: the role of motivational and social factors. Drugs:
Education, Prevention, and Policy, 11(5), 407–421.
doi:10.1080/09687630310001657944
Pai, S. M. (1991). Smoking and alcohol consumption behaviors in Chinese graduate
students and American students: a comparative study. Thesis. State University of
New York at Binghamton.
Parfrey, P. S. (1974). Factors associated with undergraduate alcohol use. Journal of
Epidemiology & Community Health, 28(4), 252–257. doi:10.1136/jech.28.4.252
Parish, J. G., & Parish, T. S. (1991). Support systems functionality, self-concepts and
alcohol use. College Student Journal, 25(4), 470–472.
Perkins, H. W. (1985). Religious traditions, parents, and peers as determinants of alcohol
and drug use among college students. Review of Religious Research, 27, 15–31.
Perkins, H. W. (2002a). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 14, 164–172.
72
Perkins, H. W. (2002b). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate
contexts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 14, 164– 172.
Perkins, H. W., & Berkowitz, A. D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol
use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education
programming. International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 961–976.
Perkins, H. W., Meilman, P. W., Leichliter, J. S., Cashin, J. R., & Presley, C. A. (1997).
Misperceptions of the norms for the frequency of alcohol and other drug use on
college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 47(6), 253–258.
doi:10.1080/07448489909595656
Perkins, H. W., & Wechsler, H. (1996). Variation in perceived college drinking norms
and its impact on alcohol abuse: A nationwide study. Journal of Drug Issues, 26(4),
961–974.
Peterson, J. B., Rothfleisch, J., Zelazo, P. D., & Pihl, R. O. (1990). Acute alcohol
intoxication and cognitive functioning. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs,
51(2), 114–122.
Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., Perkins, H. W., & Deborah, A. (1993). Pluralistic
ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the
social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243–256.
Rabow, J., & Duncan-Schill, M. (1995). Drinking among college students. Journal of
Alcohol and Drug Education, 40(3), 52–64.
Rapaport, R. J., Minelli, M. J., Angera, J. J., & Thayer, J. E. (1999). Using focus groups
to quickly assess students’ opinions about alcohol issues and programs. Journal of
College Student Development, 40(3), 311–314.
Reed, M. D., & Rountree, P. W. (1997). Peer pressure and adolescent substance use.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13(2), 143–180. doi:10.1007/BF02221306
Reifman, A., & Watson, W. K. (2003). Binge drinking during the first semester of
college: continuation and desistance from high school patterns. Journal of American
College Health, 52(2), 73–81. doi:10.1080/07448480309595727
Reis, J., & Riley, william l. (2000). Reis 200 Predictors of college students’ alcohol
consumption. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161(3), 282–291.
Ricciardelli, L., Connor, J., Williams, R., & Young, R. (2001). Gender stereotypes and
drinking cognitions as indicators of moderate and high risk drinking among young
73
women and men. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 61(2), 129–136.
doi:10.1016/S0376-8716(00)00131-9
Rosenbluth, J., Nathan, P. E., & Lawson, D. M. (1978). Environmental influences on
drinking by college students in a college pub: Behavioral observation in the natural
environment. Addictive Behaviors, 3(2), 117–121. doi:10.1016/03064603(78)90034-5
Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G., & Hoffman, S. (1976). The role of attribution processes in
conformity and dissent: Revisiting the Asch situation. American Psychologist, 31,
148– 157.
Santor, D. A., Messervey, D., & Kusumakar, V. (2000). Measuring peer pressure,
oopularity, and conformity in adolescent boys and girls: Predicting school
performance, sexual attitudes, and substance abuse. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 29(2), 163–182. doi:10.1023/A:1005152515264
Savin-Williams, R. C., Berndt, T. J., & Feldman, S. Shirley (Ed); Elliott, G. R. (Ed).
(1990). Friendship and peer relations. In At the threshold: The developing
adolescent (pp. 277–307). Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press.
Schlegel, R. P., Crawford, C. A., & Sanborn, M. D. (1977). Correspondence and
mediational properties of the Fishbein model: An application to adolescent alcohol
use. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(5), 421–430. doi:10.1016/00221031(77)90027-0
Schroeder, C. M., & Prentice, D. A. (1998). Exposing pluralistic ignorance to reduce
alcohol use among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(23),
2150–2180. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01365.x
Shell, D. F., Newman, I. M., & Fang, X. (2010). The influence of cultural orientation,
alcohol expectancies and self-efficacy on adolescent drinking behavior in Beijing.
Addiction, 105(9), 1608–1615. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03006.x
Shell, D. F., Newman, I. M., & Qu, M. (2009). Alcohol expectancies among high school
students in Inner Mongolia , China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 21(4),
433–441. doi:10.1177/10105395099344345
Sherry, P., & Stolberg, V. (1987). Factors affecting alcohol use by college students.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 350–355.
Shore, E. R., & Rivers, P. C. (1985). Peer pressure to drink: Implications for university
administration and planning. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 30(3), 22–31.
74
Shore, E. R., Rivers, P. C., & Berman, J. J. (1983). Resistance by college students to peer
pressure to drink. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 44(2), 352–361.
Shults, R. A., Elder, R. W., Sleet, D. A., Nichols, J. L., Alao, M. O., Carande-Kulis, V.
G., & Zaza, S. (2001). Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce
alcohol-impaired driving. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(4), 66–88.
doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00381-6
Simons-Morton, B., Haynie, D. L., Crump, A. D., Eitel, S. P., & Saylor, K. E. (2001).
Peer and parent influences on smoking and drinking among early adolescents.
Health Education & Behavior : The Official Publication of the Society for Public
Health Education, 28(1), 95–107.
Slutske, W. S. (2005). Alcohol use disorders among US college students and their noncollege-attending peers. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(3), 321–327.
doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.3.321
Straus, R., & Bacon, S. D. (1953). Drinking In College. New Haven, CT: Yale Universitt
Press.
Sullivan, C. J. (2006). Early adolescent delinquency: Assessing the role of childhood
problems, family environment, and peer pressure. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 4(4), 291–313. doi:10.1177/1541204006292656
Swadi, H., & Zeitlin, H. (1987). Drug Education to School Children: does it really work?
British Journal of Addiction, 82(7), 741–746. doi:10.1111/j.13600443.1987.tb01540.x
Swadi, H., & Zeitlin, H. (1988). Peer influence and adolescent substance abuse : A
promising side ? British Journal of Addiction, 83, 153–157.
Tang, H., Cai, W., Wang, H., Qian, L., Shell, D. F., Newman, I. M., & Yin, P. (2013).
The association between cultural orientation and drinking behaviors among
university students in Wuhan, China. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54796.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054796
Teahan, J. E. (1987). Alcohol expectancies, values, and drinking of Irish and U.S.
collegians. Substance Use & Misuse, 22(7), 621–638.
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. (2012).
Addiction: A Preventable and Treatable Disease. doi:10.1037/e541212013-001
75
Thombs, D. L., Beck, K. H., & Mahoney, C. A. (1993). Effects of social context and
gender on drinking patterns of young adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
40(1), 115–119.
Tryon, G. S. (1992). Comparison of alcohol use by college students: 1983 and 1988.
Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 37(2), 111–120.
Tu, X. (2007). On the teaching study of health education curriculum of Physical
Education majors 高师体育专业健康教育课程教学研究. Journal of Jiangxi
Institute of Edicatonal, 28(3), 71–75.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Bámaca, M. Y. (2003). Generational differences in resistance to
peer pressure among Mexican-Origin adolescents. Youth & Society, 35(2), 183–203.
Wall, J. a., Power, T. G., & Arbona, C. (1993). Susceptibility to antisocial peer pressure
and its relation to acculturation in Mexican-American adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 8(4), 403–418. doi:10.1177/074355489384004
Wang, Q., Wang, S., Zhou, Y., & Liu, L. (2002). Alcohol drinking and drinking-related
problems among college students 大学生饮酒状况及相关问题调查. Chinese
Journal of Health Education, 18(8), 506–507.
Wechsler, H. (1994). Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college.
Journal of American College Health, 272(21), 1672–1677.
doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520210056032
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., & Castillo, S. (1995). Correlates of college
student binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85(7), 921–926.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.85.7.921
Wechsler, H., & Isaac, N. (1992). “Binge” drinkers at Massachusetts olleges. Journal of
American College Health, 267(21), 2929–2931.
doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480210091038
Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., & Lee, H. (2000). College binge drinking in the 1990s:
a continuing problem. Results of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999 College
Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health, 48(5), 199–210.
doi:10.1080/07448480009599305
Werner, M. J., Walker, L. S., & Greene, J. W. (1996). Concurrent and prospective
screening for problem drinking among college students. The Journal of Adolescent
Health : Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 18(4), 276–285.
doi:10.1016/1054-139X(95)00207-9
76
Wood, M. D., Read, J. P., Mitchell, R. E., & Brand, N. H. (2004). Do parents still matter?
Parent and peer influences on alcohol involvement among recent high school
graduates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(1), 19–30. doi:10.1037/0893164X.18.1.19
Wood, M. D., Read, J. P., Palfai, T. P., & Stevenson, J. F. (2001). Social Influence
Processes and College Student Drinking: The Mediational Role of Alcohol Outcome
Expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 62(1), 32–43.
World Health Organization. (2014). Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health (pp.
264–296). Geneva. Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112736/1/9789240692763_eng.pdf
Wu, S., Xu, R., Zhang, J., Wang, Z., Li, K., Run, S., & Lin, X. (2009). Stastus of
smoking and drinking among college students in Beijing 北京市在校大学生吸烟饮
酒现状调查. China Journal School Health, 30(1), 18–19.
Yeh, M.-Y., & Chen, Y.-S. (2007). A cognitive model of drinking among Taiwanese
Indigenous adolescents: The influence of alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal
self-efficacy 原住民青少年饮酒的认知模式—饮酒效果预期与拒酒自我效能的
影响. Joumal of Health Education, 27, 177–194.
Young, R. M., Connor, J. P., Ricciardelli, L. A., & Saunders, J. B. (2006). The role of
alcohol expectancy and drinking refusal self-efficacy beliefs in university student
drinking. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 41(1), 70–75. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agh237
Young, R. M., Oei, T. P. S., & Crook, G. M. (1991). Development of a drinking selfefficacy questionnaire. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,
13(1), 1–15. doi:10.1007/BF00960735
Yunus, A., Mushtaq, S. K., & Qaiser, S. (2012). Peer pressure and adaptive behavior
learning: A study of adolescents in Gujrat City. International Journal of Asian
Social Science, 2(10), 1832–1841.
Zhang, X., & Liu, F. (2008). Analysis of the drinking status among college students and
the influencing factors 大学生饮酒现状及影响因素分析. Modern Preventive
Medicine, 35(3), 534–536.
Zhang-yuan, Y., Ping, H. E., Liang-liang, Y., & Xian-hong, H. (2012). Investigation and
analysis on health-related behavior of college students in Hangzhou 杭州市大学生
健康相关行为现况调查分析. Heal Research, 32(1), 40–44.
77
APPENDIX A. Institutional Review Board Approval
February 23, 2014
Lanyan Ding
Department of Educational Psychology
Ian Newman
Department of Educational Psychology
232 TEAC, UNL, 68588-0345
IRB Number: 20140213516EX
Project ID: 13516
Project Title: Influence of Peer Pressure on Alcohol Use among Chinese College
Students
Dear Lanyan:
This letter is to officially notify you of the certification of exemption of your project.
Your proposal is in compliance with this institution's Federal Wide Assurance 00002258
and the DHHS Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46). Your
project has been certified as exempt, category 2.
Dates of EX Review: 1/19/2014 & 2/14/2014
You are authorized to implement this study as of the Date of Final Approval:
02/23/2014.
We wish to remind you that the principal investigator is responsible for reporting to this
Board any of the following events within 48 hours of the event:
* Any serious event (including on-site and off-site adverse events, injuries, side effects,
deaths, or other problems) which in the opinion of the local investigator was
unanticipated, involved risk to subjects or others, and was possibly related to the research
procedures;
* Any serious accidental or unintentional change to the IRB-approved protocol that
involves risk or has the potential to recur;
* Any publication in the literature, safety monitoring report, interim result or other
finding that indicates an unexpected change to the risk/benefit ratio of the research;
78
* Any breach in confidentiality or compromise in data privacy related to the subject or
others; or
* Any complaint of a subject that indicates an unanticipated risk or that cannot be
resolved by the research staff.
If you have any questions, please contact the IRB office at 472-6965.
Sincerely,
Becky R. Freeman, CIP
for the IRB
79
APPENDIX B. English Version Questionnaire
Alcohol Drinking Questionnaire
[English translation from Mandarin]
This survey is about alcohol use and the effects of drinking alcohol on a person. The
information you provide will be used to develop better health education for young people.
Your help is greatly appreciated!
Before you begin, please read the following instructions carefully:
1) This is not an exam or a test. Please answer each question according to your
actual behaviors and thoughts. There are no right or wrong answers. How and
whether you answer all the questions will not affect your grade in this class or
your standing in the university.
2) Do not write your name on this survey. The answers you give will be kept private.
No one including your teachers will know what you have written. The questions
that ask about your background will be used only to describe the types of students
completing this survey. The information will not be used to identify you.
3) There are no hidden meanings in the questions or responses. Please answer the
questions according to your first thought.
4) You may omit any questions that you choose not to answer.
5) If you are not clear about the meaning of any question, leave the answer blank.
80
6) The survey will take less than 20 minutes to complete and includes ninety-two
items.
Thank you so much for your participation!
81
Part 1. Please choose the one answer for each question that best describes you.
1. Gender:
Male
Female
2. How many of your friends are in the same discipline as you
None
Less than half
Hal
More than half
All
Part 2. In this questionnaire “alcohol” refers to beer, liquor, wine, fruit wine, rice wine,
horse milk wine, or any other beverage that contains alcohol. For this part, choose the one
answer to each question that best describes you or your class.
3. On how many days did you drink alcohol in the past 12 months from today?
 I never drank alcohol
 1 - 2 days
 3 - 9 days
 10 - 19 days
 20 - 39 days
 40 - 99 days
 100 days or more
4. On how many days did you drink alcohol during the past 30 days from today?
 0 days
 1 - 3 days
 4 - 5 days
 6 - 9 days  10 - 19 days
 20 days or more
5. Think about the students at your university who are in the same class as you. How
many do they drink alcohol in the past 12 months?
 None of the male students in my university class drink alcohol.
Several of the male students in my university class drink alcohol.
Half of the male students in my university class drink alcohol.
The majority of the male students in my university class drink alcohol.
All of the male students in my university class drink alcohol.
 I have no idea.
6. Think about the students at your university who are in the same class as you. How
many do they drink alcohol in the past 12 months?
None of the female students in my university class drink alcohol.
Several of the female students in my university class drink alcohol.
Half of the female students in my university class drink alcohol.
The majority of the female students in my university class drink alcohol.
All of the female students in my university class drink alcohol.
82
 I have no idea.
Part 3.
Scale A. Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement that describes
what happens when a person drinks alcohol by circling a number on a 5-point scale like
this:
1
2
Strongest stronger
Disagree disagree
3
neither
disagree or agree
5
stronger
agree
6
strongest
agree
Please choose one number for each statement that best reflects your belief.
1. If I drink alcohol, my reaction will slow down.
2. If I drink large amounts of alcohol, I will be admired by other people.
3. If I drink alcohol, it will improve my interpersonal relationships.
4. If I drink alcohol, I will overcome my shyness.
5. It is OK to drink alcohol if I do it in moderation.
6. If I drink alcohol, I will be sexier.
7. If I drink alcohol, others will think I am mature.
8. If I drink alcohol, my physical tiredness will be relieved.
9. If I serve alcohol to my guests, they will think I am a good friend.
10. If I drink alcohol, my future will be harmed.
11. If I drink alcohol, I will be wasting my time.
12. If I drink alcohol, it will help me to make deals that otherwise cannot be done.
13. If I drink alcohol, I will enjoy the taste of it.
14. I think I will be forgivable if I drink alcohol and overdo something to a person of
the opposite sex.
15. If I drink alcohol, my health will be harmed / I will cause harm to my health.
16. If I drink alcohol, food will be tastier.
17. If I drink alcohol, my parents will blame me.
18. If I drink alcohol, my memory will be harmed.
19. If I drink alcohol, it will help me make new friends.
20. If I drink alcohol, my physical discomfort or pain will be relieved.
21. If I drink alcohol, I can say what I really think.
22. If I drink, my reputation will be ruined.
23. If I drink alcohol at festivals, it adds more pleasure to my life.
24. If I drink alcohol, it is prelude for my sexual behavior.
25. If I drink alcohol, I will behave inappropriately.
26. If I drink alcohol, I will feel happy.
27. If I refuse someone’s toasting, I am afraid of hurting his/her feeling.
28. If I drink, I will be more likely to learn bad stuff.
83
29. If I drink medicinal alcohol, it is good for my health.
30. If I drink alcohol, I will get dizzy and/or have a headache.
31. If I drink alcohol, I will be wasting my money.
32. If I drink alcohol, I show that I am enthusiastic.
33. If I drink alcohol, I will be more creative.
34. If I toast someone, I will show him/her respect.
35. If I drink alcohol, I will cause problems that will damage my neighborhood
relationship.
36. If I drink alcohol, it may encourage me to express my love to a person of the
opposite sex.
37. If I drink alcohol, my work or business will be delayed.
38. If I drink alcohol, I will be more welcomed by other people.
39. If I drink alcohol, it will help me forget about unpleasant things.
40. If I drink alcohol, I will be less depressed.
41. If I am invited to drink alcohol by others, I will be expected to invite them to
drink later.
42. If I drink a little, it is good for my health.
43. If I drink alcohol, it can stimulate my sex initiation / intention.
44. If I drink alcohol, my judgment will be impaired.
45. If I drink alcohol, other people will think I am easy going.
46. If I drink alcohol, I will feel relaxed.
47. If I drink alcohol, I will be more resistant to cold weather.
48. I will be honored whenever my classmates or friends invite me to their banquet.
49. If I drink a little, it is not a big deal.
50. If I drink alcohol, it can improve my sex performance.
51. If I drink alcohol, I will do stupid things.
52. If I drink alcohol, I can show that I am honest and sincere.
53. If I drink alcohol, I will be more inspired.
54. If I drink alcohol, I will perform poorly in my school.
55. If I drink alcohol, I will be more attractive to opposite sex classmates or friends.
56. If I drink alcohol, I will be impolite to others.
57. If I drink alcohol, my family will be angry.
58. If I entertain guests without serving them alcohol, I will be giving them a cold
shoulder.
59. If I don’t drink alcohol, others may think I am unreliable.
60. If I refuse someone’s toasting, I will show disrespect to him/her.
61. If I drink alcohol, others will think I am not graceful.
62. If I drink alcohol, my parents will be upset.
63. If I do not offer alcohol at a banquet, my guests may complain.
64. If I drink alcohol, I will be easier to get along with.
65. If I do not serve alcohol at my home parties, I will disappoint my guests.
Scale B. Listed below are a number of situations in which you might feel those pressures
to drink alcohol. Please rate how confident you are that you could successfully resist
84
these pressures or desires in the following situations. You should mark your level of
confidence on the scale provided. If you have no confidence at all that you could resist
the pressure described you should mark 0 (I cannot do it at all). If you are fully confident
that you could resist the pressure described you should mark 100 (I am certain I can do
it.). If your feeling is between these two extremes you should mark the number that best
reflects your feelings.
1. Resist pressure from your friends to drink when you are at their homes.
2. Resist pressure from your friends to drink at a festival.
3. Resist pressure from your friends to go to a "Western" style bar or club.
4. Resist pressure from your boyfriend/girlfriend to drink on a date.
5. Resist the urge to drink to improve your mood.
6. Resist the urge to drink when you are feeling joyful.
7. Resist the pressure to engage in toasting at a banquet.
8. Resist pressure from your friends to get drunk at a party.
9. Resist pressure from your friends to get drunk at a festival.
10. Resist pressure from your boyfriend/girlfriend to get drunk on a date.
11. Resist getting drunk when you are at a "Western" style bar or club.
12. Resist the urge to get drunk to improve your mood.
13. Resist the urge to get drunk when you are feeling joyful.
14. Resist the pressure to engage in excessive toasting at a banquet.
15. Refuse a host's offer of more alcohol at a social gathering when you think you already
have had enough.
16. Resist the urge to drink to make you feel more comfortable in a social setting.
17. Resist the urge to drink to make you feel more comfortable on a date.
18. Resist the urge to drink to impress your friends.
19. Resist the urge to drink to impress your boyfriend/girlfriend.
20. Resist the urge to have a drink with a delicious meal.
21. Resist the urge to show your friends how you can drink a large quantity of alcohol.
22. Resist pressure from your friends to drink a lot of drinks to show how well you can
"hold" your alcohol.
23. Resist the urge to drink when all your friends are drinking.
24. Resist pressure to drink at your own birthday party.
25. Resist pressure to drink at a friend's birthday party.
26. Resist pressure to get drunk at your own birthday party.
27. Resist pressure to get drunk at a friend's birthday party.
28. Resist pressure to get drunk at weekend camp.
85
Scale C. Please read each statement carefully and write the number that best reflects how
you feel in the space provided, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
strongly
disagree
mildly
disagree
1
2
neither
agree nor
disagree
3
mildly
agree
strongly
agree
4
5
1. if my friends offer toast, it would be hard for me to say no.
2. at times, I’ve drunk alcohol because my friends urged me to.
3. I often feel pressured to drink when I normally would not drink.
4. if my friends are drinking, it would be hard for me to resist having a drink.
5. I’ve felt pressured to get drunk at parties.
6. if my best friend offered toast, it would be hard for me t to refuse drinking alcohol.
7. at times I have drink alcohol because my best friend urged me to
8. if my best friend urged me to get drunk at a party I would have a drink.
(The questionnaire ends here. Thank you!)
86
APPENDIX C. Chinese Version Questionnaire
大学生问卷调查
这项调查是关于饮酒行为和酒精对人的影响。您提供的信息将会对大学生健康
教育提供帮助。此次调查中，您将被问及两个关于您个人的问题，一个关于酒的使
用的简短调查，以及三个关于对于饮酒感受的量表。在开始回答问题之前，请您仔
细阅读以下说明:
1) 这不是考试或测验, 没有所谓的正确答案。您是否回答，以及具体的答案不
会影响您的成绩和在学校的表现。
2) 请不要在问卷上填写您的名字，您的回答将会完全保密，您身边没有人会知
道您的答案，包括老师在内。有关您个人背景的问题只是用于描述参与本调
查的人群征，不会用来识别您的身份。
3) 所有的问题都没有隐藏的含义，请您根据第一反应来作答，不必花费时间去
考虑您的选择。
4) 填写问卷时，请不要跟同学交谈，也不要参考别人的答案。如果您不明白某
个题，请留下空白。
5) 请检查确认没有问题遗漏，当您完成后，请跟随问卷调查者的指示。
谢谢您的合作!
87
第一部分：请对最符合你情况的选项打√。
1．性别：
男
女
2．你朋友圈里，与你同属一个专业有多少人？
 没有
几个
一半
 大多数
全部
第二部分：本次问卷中的“酒”包括啤酒、白酒、红酒、药酒、米酒、果酒、奶酒，
以及任何含酒精的饮料。请对最符合你情况的选项打√。
3. 过去 12 个月里，你大概有多少天喝过酒?
 从不喝酒
1-2天
3-9天
 10 - 19 天
 20 - 39 天
 40 - 99 天
 100 天或者更多
4.过去 30 天里，你大概有多少天喝过酒？
0天
1-3天
4-5天
6-9天
 10 - 19 天
 20 天或者更多
5. 过去一年里，你班上的男同学有多少人喝酒?
 没有
 几个
 一半
 大多数
 全部
不知道
6. 过去一年里，你班上的女同学有多少人喝酒?
88
 没有
 几个
 一半
大多数
 全部
不知道
第三部分：
量表 A，请对最符合你看法的等级打√。即使你从不喝酒，也请根据你从他人得到
的经验来回答问题。
1.
如果我喝酒，我的反应能力会变慢。
2.
如果我能很多酒，别人会佩服我。
完不
全同
意
不
1同
意
1
不
同
意
意
2
既也
不不
同反
意对
3
同
意
2
3
4
完
全
同
意
5同
意
5
3.
喝酒会改善我的人际关系。
1
2
3
4
5
4.
酒会帮助我克服羞怯。
1
2
3
4
5
5.
如果我适量喝酒，我会觉得轻松愉快。
1
2
3
4
5
6.
如果我喝酒，我会显得更性感。
1
2
3
4
5
7.
如果我喝酒，别人会认为我长大了。
1
2
3
4
5
8.
喝酒会解除我的疲劳。
1
2
3
4
5
9.
如果我请客人喝酒，会显得我很真诚。
1
2
3
4
5
10. 喝酒会影响我的发展和前途。
1
2
3
4
5
11. 喝酒会浪费我的时间。
1
2
3
4
5
12. 喝酒会帮我谈成生意。
1
2
3
4
5
13. 如果我喝酒，我可以享受酒的醇香。
1
2
3
4
5
14. 酒后我对异性做出的 过头举动是可以原
谅的。
1
2
3
4
5
15. 酒会损害我的健康。
1
2
3
4
5
16. 酒会让我觉得饭菜更加有滋味。
1
2
3
4
5
17. 如果我喝酒，我父母会责备我。
1
2
3
4
5
4
89
不
同
意
意
2
既也
不不
同反
意对
3
同
意
19. 喝酒会有助于我结交朋友。
完不
全同
意
不
1同
意
1
2
3
4
完
全
同
意
5同
意
5
20. 酒会消除我身体的不适。
1
2
3
4
5
21. 酒会使我更大胆地和别人说话。
1
2
3
4
5
22. 喝酒会影响我的名声。
1
2
3
4
5
23. 在过节时喝点酒会增加我生活的乐趣。
1
2
3
4
5
24. 我认为酒是进行性行为的前奏。
1
2
3
4
5
25. 酒会我会做出过头的事。
1
2
3
4
5
26. 酒会让我感到高兴。
1
2
3
4
5
27. 如果我拒绝别人敬酒，我可能会伤害他
（她）的感情。
28. 喝酒容易让我学坏。
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
28. 如果我喝点药酒，会对我的健康有利。
1
2
3
4
5
29. 如果我喝酒，我会头晕或头疼。
1
2
3
4
5
30. 喝酒会浪费我的钱。
1
2
3
4
5
31. 我请别人喝酒可以显示我的热情。
1
2
3
4
5
32. 酒会激发我的创造力。
1
2
3
4
5
33. 如果我向别人敬酒，我会让对方觉得我尊
重他（她）。
34. 喝酒会损害我和邻居的关系。
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
35. 酒会鼓起我向异性表示爱慕的勇气。
1
2
3
4
5
36. 酒会我会误事。
1
2
3
4
5
37. 如果聚会时我喝酒，我会更受欢迎。
1
2
3
4
5
38. 酒会让我忘掉不愉快的事情。
1
2
3
4
5
39. 酒可以消除我的烦恼。
1
2
3
4
5
40. 如果别人请我喝酒，我也会回请他们。
1
2
3
4
5
18. 如果我喝酒，我的记忆力会受损。
4
90
不
同
意
意
2
既也
不不
同反
意对
3
同
意
42. 我认为酒能激发我的性冲动。
完不
全同
意
不
1同
意
1
2
3
4
完
全
同
意
5同
意
5
43. 如果我喝酒，我的判断能力会下降。
1
2
3
4
5
44. 如果聚会时我喝酒，别人会觉得我容易交
往。
45. 酒会使我放松。
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
46. 酒可以帮我御寒。
1
2
3
4
5
47. 如果同学或朋友请我喝酒，我会觉得很荣
幸。
1
2
3
4
5
48. 如果我稍微喝点酒，我觉得没什么关系。
1
2
3
4
5
49. 酒能增强我的性功能。
1
2
3
4
5
50. 如果我喝了酒，我可能会干蠢事。
1
2
3
4
5
51. 喝酒会使我显得真诚和实在。
1
2
3
4
5
52. 喝酒激发我的灵感。
1
2
3
4
5
53. 喝酒我影响我的学习成绩。
1
2
3
4
5
54. 借助喝酒我可以吸引异性的注意。
1
2
3
4
5
55. 酒后我可能会对别人不礼貌。
1
2
3
4
5
56. 如果我喝酒，将来我的家庭可能会不幸
57. 福。
如果我招待别人时不上酒，客人会觉得我
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
60. 如果我喝酒，别人会认为我不雅观。
1
2
3
4
5
61. 如果我喝酒，我父母可能会不高兴。
1
2
3
4
5
41. 如果我会少量饮酒，会有益于我的健康。
不礼貌。
58. 如果与朋友聚会时不喝酒，别人会觉得我
不实在。
59. 如果我拒绝别人敬酒，会被认为是不给对
方面子。
4
91
完不
全同
意
不
1同
意
不
同
意
意
2
既也
不不
同反
意对
3
同
意
63. 如果聚会时我喝酒，就不会让别人觉得我
与周围的人格格不入。
1
2
3
4
5
64. 如果在我家聚会时我没准备酒，会使大家
觉得扫兴。
1
2
3
4
5
62. 如果亲朋好友来访时我不招待他们喝酒，
他们就会有意见。
4
完
全
同
意
5同
意
量表 B，请根据下面提供的刻度尺来评估自己有多大自信程度成功地拒绝饮酒压力
或者抵制饮酒诱惑。（假如：完全没有信心拒绝外来的饮酒压力，请标记 0，充分
相信自己能抵制外来饮酒压力，请标记 100， 假如你的感受介于两端点之间，请
标记出能代表你自信水平的数字。）
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
动。
在朋友家聚会，我能够拒绝朋友的劝酒。
过节时，如果朋友劝我喝酒，我能够拒绝。
如果朋友邀请我去西式酒吧或者俱乐部喝酒，我能够拒绝。
跟男/女朋友约会的时候，如果他/她劝我喝酒，我能够拒绝。
心情不好时，我能控制自己，不会靠喝酒来改善心情。
心情特别好时，我能控制住自己想干一杯的冲动。
宴会上别人劝我干杯，我能够拒绝。
饭局上朋友劝我喝酒，我能够控制住自己，以免喝醉。
过节时朋友劝我喝酒，我能够控制住自己，以免喝醉。
跟男/女朋友约会时，如果他/她劝我喝酒，我能控制住自己，以免喝醉。
在西式酒吧或者俱乐部里，我能够控制住自己，以免喝醉。
心情不好时，我能控制住自己，不会借酒消愁，一醉方休。
特别高兴时，我能控制住自己，不会肆意狂饮而酒醉。
宴会上，我能控制住自己，以免过多喝酒。
社交聚会时，当我认为自己已经喝得过多时，我能够拒绝主人的劝酒。
社交场合，即使喝酒会让我觉得自在一些，我也能控制住自己想喝酒的冲
92
17.
动。
18.
19.
动。
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
约会时，即使喝酒会让我觉得自在一些，我也能够控制住自己想喝酒的冲
即使喝酒能够使朋友对我刮目相看，我也能控制自己想喝酒的冲动。
即使喝酒能够使男/女朋友对我另眼相看，我也能控制住自己想喝酒的冲
即使有好菜，我也能控制住自己想喝酒的冲动。
我能控制住自己向朋友炫耀酒量的冲动。
当朋友劝我多喝酒以展示酒量的时候，我能够拒绝。
当所有的朋友都喝酒时，我也能控制住自己想喝酒的冲动。
在我自己的生日聚会上，我能控制住自己，不去喝酒。
朋友的生日聚会上，我能控制住自己，不去喝酒。
在我自己的生日聚会上，我能控制住自己，以免喝醉。
在朋友的生日聚会上，我能控制住自己，以免喝醉。
郊游时，我能控制住自己，以免喝醉。
量表 C，请对最符合你看法的等级打√（从等级 1 完全不同意，到等级 5 完全同
意）。
1. 如果我推辞朋友的敬酒，会驳了对方的面子。
2. 有时候我喝酒是迫于朋友的劝酒。
3. 我经常迫于无奈而喝些酒。
4. 假如我的朋友们都在喝酒，我迫于情面，也得
5.
饭局上我经常迫于压力而喝酒，以至于喝醉。
一起喝。
6. 如果交情深的朋友给我敬酒，我很难推辞。
7. 有时候我喝酒，是因为好朋友的强烈要求。
8. 假如交情深的朋友要与我拼酒，我就会喝醉。
（调查结束，谢谢！）
完不
全同
意
不
同
意
中
立
同
意
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
完
全
同
意
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5